Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     803594
Filing Accepted:  1/27/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
GULF COAST REHABILITATION CENTER, INC. (“GCRC”) AND 1937 JENKS, LLC   First Name  
Street Address * 1819 WEAKFISH WAY
City, State Zip * PANAMA CITY BEACH, FL 32408
Email Address * TLD@BEGGSLANE.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   GULF COAST REHABILITATION CENTER, INC. (“GCRC”)TFHROUGH 1937 JENKS, LLC   First Name  
Policy # * AMR-58799-01 Claim #* 4156990
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* DIDIER First Name * TERRIE Initial L
Street Address* 501 COMMENDENCIA ST.
City, State Zip* PENSACOLA , FLORIDA 32502
Email Address * TLD@BEGGSLANE.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, LONDON
NAIC Company Code
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* SEDGWICK AND MKA
Type of Insurance * Commercial Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
Unfair Trade Practice
Other : misrepresentation
* 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)(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.

[Search terms: Consequential Loss – Contamination Cleanup – Debris Removal – Demolition & Increased Cost of Construction – Land improvements – Post Loss Inflation] – Valuation – Definitions – Additional Insureds] I. Declarations A. The Insured LaVie Care Centers LLC DBA Consulate Health care . . . and any other party or interest that the Insured is required by contract or agreement to insure; all hereafter referred to as the “Insured.” [Consulate was required by contract/lease agreement with GCRC to insure it for the loss GCRC sustained by Hurricane Michael. GCRC was required by contract/lease agreement with 1937 Jenks LLC to insure the property for the loss sustained by Hurricane Michael.] D. Limits of Liability In the event of loss or damage insured under this policy, this Insurer shall be liable for its proportional share of $200,000,000 per Occurrence, and its proportional share of the following program per Occurrence and/or policy year Annual Aggregate sublimits of liability excess of policy deductibles. [and listed sublimits, including:] $ 500,000 Claim Preparation Expenses [as defined at VIII, Extensions of Coverage, ¶G, p. 35 of the Policy] $ 5,000,000 Consequential Loss [as defined at III., Property Insured, ¶B.9., p. 15 of the Policy] $ 500,000 Contamination cleanup [as defined at III, Property Insured, ¶B.2., p. 14 of the Policy] $ 5,000,000 Debris Removal and Cost of Cleanup or 25% o the …., whichever is greater [as defined at III., Property Insured, ¶B.1, p. 13 of the Policy] $25,000,000 Demolition & Increased Cost of Construction [as defined at III., Property Insured, ¶B.15, p.16 of the Policy] $ 1,000,000 Land Improvements [as defined at V., Definitions, p. 43 of the Policy] $ 1,000,000 Post Loss Inflation [as defined at I. Declarations, ¶E., p. 8 of the Policy] $ 5,000,000 Rental Value [as defined at V, Time Element, ¶C., p. 21 of the Policy] E. Currency 3. This Policy insures the loss, known as ‘post loss inflation,’ incurred …. III. Property Insured Except as hereinafter excluded, this Policy insures: A. The insurable interest of the Insured in all real and personal property of every kind and description . . . within the Policy territory . . . . B. Additional Coverages 1. Debris Removal and Cost of Clean Up Notwithstanding the provisions of any exclusion contained herein . . ., in the event of physical loss, damage or destruction or property insured by a peril insured by this Policy, this Policy . . . insures: a. … and/or b. . . . . 2. Contamination Cleanup Notwithstanding anything in this Policy to the contrary, this Policy insures costs …. 9. Consequential Loss This Policy Insures: a. Physical loss, damage or destruction of property insured resulting from physical loss, damage or destruction of other property insured at the same “location” by a peril insured by this Policy. b. The reduction in value of undamaged insured articles that are …. 15. Demolition and Increased Cost of Construction In the event of insured loss or damage insured under this policy that causes the enforcement of any law, ordinance and/or governmental directive …. IV. Time Element A. Business Interruption Gross Earnings (excluding ordinary Payroll) . . . . C. Rental Value This Policy insures: 1. ‘Rental value’ loss sustained by the insured . . . . 2. For the purposes of this insurance, ‘rental value’ is defined as the sum of: . . . . If the Insured is both a lessor and a lessee of the same “location,” this Policy insures the loss as described in 2. above . . . . F. Provisions Applicable to “Time Element” Coverage 1. The Period of Recovery a. Applicable to “time element” as defined in Business Interruption Gross Earnings Clause A, Extra Expense Clause B, Rental Value Clause C and . . .: a.-d. 6. Loss of Ingress or Egress This Policy insures the “time element” loss sustained during the period of time when, as a result of physical loss . . . . 8. Increased Time to Rebuild In the event reconstruction, restoration, repair or use of property insured is regulated or prohibited by enforcement of any law, ordinance, or regulation . . . this Policy shall pay for any increase in “time element” loss arising out of the additional time required to bring property insured into full compliance with applicable law, ordinance or regulation. V. Definitions Land Improvements: Any alteration to the natural condition of the land at a ‘location’ by grading, landscaping and additions to such land including landscape gardening, pavements, roadways, or similar works, and including the cost of reclaiming, restoring or repairing “land improvements.” VII. Valuation The value of property shall be determined as follows: A. With respect to all property insured . . ., the payment for loss shall be on a ‘replacement cost’ basis. “Replacement cost’ includes . . . . B. If, as a result of physical loss, damage or destruction insured by this Policy reconstruction, restoration, repair or use of property insured is regulated or prohibited by the enforcement of any law, ordinance, or regulation which is in force at the time of the physical loss, damage or destruction, this Policy shall pay for ‘demolition and increased cost of construction’ meaning: . . . . VIII. Extensions of Coverage This Policy insures: G. Claim Preparation Expenses Expenses incurred by the Insured or by the Insured’s representatives including Accountants, Appraisers, Architects, Auditors, Consultants, Engineers, or other such professionals in order to arrive at the loss payable under this Policy in the event of a claim. IX. General Conditions K. Additional Insureds, Loss Payees and Mortgage Holders All third parties have an interest in property insured, as required by lease, contract, or agreement, shall automatically be Additional Insureds hereunder. M. Required by Law Any provisions required by law to be included in policies issued by the insurer shall be deemed to have been included in this Policy. If the provisions of this Policy conflict with the laws of any jurisdiction in which this Policy applies, and if certain provisions are required by law to be stated in this Policy, this Policy shall be read so as to eliminate such conflict or deemed to include such provisions for insured “locations” within such jurisdictions. Endorsement 2 Additional Named Insured’s included but are not limited to: Additional Insureds Facility Name 1937 Jenks Avenue Operations LLC Sea Breeze Health Care
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

[Search Terms: Final Construction Documents – Bid – Deadline – Letter – Demolition & Increased Cost of Construction] The named insured under the policy is LaVie Care Centers LLC, k/n/a 1937 Jenks Operations, LLC, and d/b/a Consulate Health Care (“Consulate”). Gulf Coast Rehabilitation Center, Inc. (“GCRC”) and 1937 Jenks, LLC (“Jenks”) (collectively “Insureds”), pursuant to lease agreements, are additional insureds under policies issued by, among others: (1) AmRisc, LLC, which includes three insurers: (a) Certain Underwriters at Lloyds (Policy No. AMR-58799-01), (b) General Security Indemnity Co. of AZ (Policy No. 10T029659-08022-18-01), and (c) United Specialty Insurance Company (Policy No. USI-21021-01). (2) National Fire & Marine Insurance Company (Policy No. 42-XPR-302506-03). (3) Ironshore Insurance Ltd., n/k/a Liberty Specialty Markets Bermuda Ltd. (Policy No. 443296118A). (4) Oil Casualty Insurance Ltd. (Policy No. 443296118A) (same policy as Ironshore). (5) Evanston Insurance Company (Policy No. MKLV10XP002561). Several other Insurers have settled their portions of the claim. All policies were in effect on October 10, 2018, at the time Hurricane Michael destroyed the property at 1937 Jenks Avenue, Panama City, Florida, operating as Sea Breeze Health Care (the Insured Property). Codes and ordinances applicable to the property required that the building be demolished and rebuilt. Previous Civil Remedy Notices have been filed during the lengthy claim process that has been ongoing since the hurricane in 2018: 438725 (6/7/2019); 438733 (6/7/2019); 438736 (6/7/2019); 438740 (6/7/2019); 438744 (6/7/2019); 476775 (2/10/2020); 475784 (2/10/2020); 475790 (2/10/2020); 475839 (2/10/2020); 475841 (2/10/2020); 475848 (2/10/2020). This Civil Remedy Notice concerns actions/inactions since March 2022, when the AmRisc Insurers and National Fire & Marine Insurance Company made certain payments and entered into an Agreement with the Insureds concerning the future handling of the claim. Ironshore, Oil Casualty, and Evanston have been monitoring the progress of the claim through their third-party administrator, Sedgwick, who is the third-party administrator for all Insurers. Ironshore’s and Oil Casualty’s exposures for this claim arise when the total payments to all insureds exceed $25,000,000. Evanston’s exposure for this claim arises when the total payments to all insureds exceed $50,000,000. It is believed that these exposures will be reached based on recent bids received from contractors to rebuild the facility damaged by Hurricane Michael. It is not known to what extent Ironshore, Oil Casualty, and Evanston had input into the letter and associated actions that are at issue in this Civil Remedy Notice. Insurers have been informed from day one and repeatedly throughout this claim that Insureds do not own the property. It is owned by the City of Panama City. Insurers have been informed from day one and repeatedly throughout this claim that Insureds do not intend to rebuild with any upgrades other than what is required by law. Pursuant to the 2022 Agreement with AmRisc and National Fire, Sedgwick has been involved in every phase of the planning process for the reconstruction, reviewing and commenting on the plans with respect to coverage during each phase. Insureds’ architect and/or counsel have addressed those concerns during each phase of the process before moving to the next phase. The Final Construction Documents were provided to Insurers by Insureds’ architect on July 1, 2024, and the architect, as Insurers were aware, began the process of seeking bids. Insurers never mentioned that they wanted to suggest any contractors for bids. On November 13, 2024, four months after receiving the documents, Insurers sent a letter expressing concern that there were betterments in the Final Construction Documents. Violation of §626.9541(1)(i)3.c., Fla. Stat. After consultation with Insureds and their architect, Insureds counsel responded to the November 13 letter on November 25, 2024. Insureds’ letter addressed each concern raised in Insurers’ November 13, letter, many of which had been previously addressed and resolved. For the couple remaining concerns, Insureds agreed to modify the element or provided facts as to why the element was not a betterment. The letter remined Insurers that consultation with Insurers and agreement concerning coverage was obtained during each phase of the process before moving to the next phase. The letter stressed that “TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE because the bids expire sixty (60) days from the date the bids were submitted. In other words, the bids expire January 20, 2025.” The bids were received by Insureds’ architect on November 21, 2024. They were immediately provided to Insurers on November 22, 2024. AFTER the bids were received and a deadline was in place to accept the bids by January 20, 2025, on December 13, 2024, Insurers informed Insureds that they were obtaining other bids for the project, despite the fact the bids received by Insureds were within $50,000 of each other on a $33,000,000 project, strongly suggesting the bids were in-line with industry standard; and despite the fact Insurers never objected to the bidding process put in place by the architect or advising Insureds or their architect that Insurers wanted other contractors to participate in the bids. Violation of §624.155(b)(1), Fla. Stat. and §626.9541(1)(i)3.g. Insureds’ counsel immediately informed Insurers by letter dated December 14, 2024, that if Insurers wanted to obtain bids or wanted to suggest contractors for the bidding process, they should have done so when the bidding process began or certainly before Insureds’ bids were received and a deadline in place to accept those bids. Insureds’ counsel warned Insurers about the ramifications of causing Insureds to lose the bid where estimates in the industry suggested that construction costs may go up as much as 30% after the first of the year. In that same December 14, 2024, letter, Insureds asked for the names of the contractors with whom Insurers were soliciting bids to confirm that those contractors were qualified to bid on the project. No names were provided until January 20, 2025, at 5:06 p.m., the day Insureds’ bids expired, and then only one name was provided. Violation of §626.9541(1)(i)3.c., Fla. Stat. Insurers responded to the December 14, 2024, letter by email on December 16, 2024, falsely alleging that the July 2024 Final Construction Documents were insufficient to determine scope of work for the bids and that they included “betterments.” Violation of §626.9541(i)(2), Fla. Stat. Insureds’ counsel responded by letter on December 17, 2024, noting that the Final Construction Documents provided in July were sufficient for Insurers to determine the scope of work, that those documents included more than 1,000 pages of specifications and 277 drawings. The December 16 letter explained that three of the five Addenda that Insurers alleged changed the scope of work were nothing more than clarifications of the Final Construction Documents as requested by the contractors making the bids. One Addenda was merely to add a $275,000 allowance for Terrazzo flooring in certain areas as was in the original building. The final Addenda included an allowance because the state/county had determined that the site was too low; and the state/county required a site boundary retaining wall. The allowance for the retaining wall was in the amount of $1,100,000. None of these Addenda would have any effect on Insurers’ ability to determine coverage or to seek bids. Further, Insurers were immediately provided copies of the Addenda as they were developed on October 23, 2024, November 11, 2024, November 15, 2024, and November 20, 2024. At this point Insurers had everything they needed to determine coverage and the cost to rebuild to resolve the rebuilding claim. Yet, they did not do so. Violation of §624.155(1)(b)1., Fla. Stat. With respect to “betterments,” there were none. Betterments alleged by Insurers have been addressed at each phase of the project by the architect and/or Insureds’ counsel as those issues were raised. If the Insureds and their architect agreed items could be considered betterments, they were modified; and if they did not agree, the facts were provided to Insurers establishing they were not betterments. Further, the Policy gives the Insured, at its “sole option,” the right to substitute “items, property or materials of like kind and quality,” and such substitution is not considered a ‘betterment.’ Additionally, as provided in the Policy, “without penalty the Insured may expend the amount of any replacement cost recovery within the scope of the Insured’s business subject only to the full amount of the recovery actually being expended in acquiring or constructing [the] building[] or structure[].” In other words, if the Insured makes a saving in one area, it can be expended in another area. However, assuming there were betterments (which is not true), those betterments would be on the construction documents Insurers had been continually reviewing for more than a year, not on the subcontractor bids as alleged by Insurers. Insurers did not need to wait for the Bid Documents, as they alleged, to determine whether any element was covered or a ‘betterment.’ The Final Construction Documents provided the necessary information to determine the cost to rebuild. Violation of §624.155(1)(b)1., Fla. Stat. The December 17, 2024, letter to Insurers reiterated that if Insurers’ delay caused Insureds to lose the bid, Insurers would be responsible for the increase in cost associated with that loss. On January 20, 2025, at 5:06 p.m., the day Insureds’ bids expired, Sedgwick on behalf of Insurers sent a letter to counsel and her clients. The letter advised, “The Insurers have requested that we address concerns related to the final design and construction plans submitted by the Insured, which were received after several years of coordination and prior discussions about the project’s compliance with the policy’s terms.” The letter alleged that the bids raised “questions due to their considerable deviation from independent bids obtained by the Insurers through their expert, MKA.” Violation of §624.155(1)(b)1. §626.9541(1)(i)3.g., Fla. Stat. The letter did not specify how many bids were obtained or the range for those bids. The letter stated that Venue Construction Group LLC has submitted a bid for approximately $19 million. The bids received by the Insureds are in the $32-33 million range. As noted above, Insureds’ bids were ALL provided to Insurers; and those bids deviated approximately only $50,000 from each other. The letter incorrectly alleged that “the Insured’s bids far exceed the limitations set forth in the policy.” Violation of §626.9541(1)(i)2., Fla. Stat. The letter alleged that Venue Construction “is reputable.” The letter did not provide any facts to support that assumption. The Florida Division of Corporations website indicates that Venue Construction has been in existence only since November 13, 2019, barely five years (even though the company’s website boasts that “Venue Construction Group has been a premier provider of top-tier Florida construction services for decades ….”). The website’s “Commercial Construction Services” listing does not list any Category I-1 or I-2 AHCA oversight construction. “Senior Housing” is listed. But Senior Housing is different from Assisted Living (Category I-1) for which the Florida Agency for Healthcare Administration would be involved. Even so, assisted living and nursing homes are entirely different classifications and types of projects under the Florida Building Code and under AHCA Guidelines. The Florida Contractor Licensing Portal indicates that Amit Ghosh is the qualifying agent for the company and that his licensure date is July 20, 2021, just three and a half years ago. From the website, it appears Mr. Gosh’s background is as an asset manager for a real estate private equity firm. According to the website, Mr. Gosh’s partner in the company, William Rodriguez, has been a building contractor for a number of years. But his portfolio includes only “retail shopping centers, office buildings, and multifamily developments.” It includes nothing about construction subject to AHCA oversight—Category I-2 (Institutional, Skilled Nursing Facility, Hospital, etc.) or even Category 1-1 (Assisted Living). The website says Mr. Rodriguez was the “Lead Project Manager at Mercedes Homes” for 20 years. It appears Mercedes was strictly a home builder. Research reveals that Mercedes Homes filed for bankruptcy in 2009 (citing between 5,000 and 10,000 creditors) and ceased operation in 2012. Venue Construction’s lack of appropriate experience for this type of project is also revealed in its bid response. It is not clear whether Sedgwick or MKA provided Venue or any of the Insurers’ bidders with the complete thousands of pages of bid documents and the five addenda to those documents or whether Sedgwick or MKA advised the bidders to include substitutions. Just a quick review by Insureds’ architect of Venue Construction’s bid reveals the following significant deficiencies: • The bid response does not indicate in the box provided whether the five addenda were reviewed and incorporated into the bid. • The bid response does not include a cost for performance and payment bonds. • The bid response does not include a cost for insurance. • The bid response does not include the cost of permitting. • The project staffing and general labor in the bid response does not align with the Final Construction Documents. • The exterior envelop warranty is not included in the bid. • The cost for low voltage equipment is not included in the bid. • The retaining wall allowance is not included in the bid. • The Terrazzo flooring allowance is not included in the bid. • No pricing provided by roof consultant as per Final Construction Documents. Consultation with the roof consultant was required by the Final Construction Documents. • ICF and Hollow Core Plank appear to be missing from the bid. In addition to the above specific omissions in Venue Construction’s bid, there are significant questions about when and how this and any other bids were obtained by Insurers. Insureds’ architect was not given the opportunity to vet these bidders for their competency to complete this difficult project that requires not only compliance with the building codes but also knowledge about AHCA regulations, requirements, and procedures for nursing homes. The bids obtained by Insurers were not provided under seal to Insureds and their architect as required by the bid form. It is not clear whether this omission was demanded by Insurers or the requirement was simply ignored by the bidders. Further, the significant difference between the Venue Construction bid (as compared to all other bids received by Insureds) in addition to the problems noted above makes the Venue Construction bid very suspect. It is of concern that Venue Construction might attempt to make up the difference in its bid compared to all other bidders through change orders, increasing the cost. The January 20,2025, letter also misrepresented the Policy’s Demolition & Increased Cost of Construction provision, incorrectly alleging its $25 million sublimit provides the entire amount available under the policy for the rebuilding project. The letter also incorrectly stated that the Insurers remained liable for only $18,598,332 of that $25 million because they had paid their proportionate share of $5 million pursuant to the non-cash agreement and $1,401,668 had already been paid toward code-related rebuilding. Violation of §§626.9541(1)(i)2. And 626.9541(1)(i)3.b., Fla. Stat. Demolition & Increased Cost of Construction is “Additional Coverage” that includes (i) the value of the undamaged elements, (ii) the cost of demolishing the undamaged elements, and (iii) the increased cost to replace both the damaged and undamaged elements due to code requirements. It does not include the cost to replace the elements damaged by Hurricane Michael, which falls under the Policy’s $200M Policy limit. The Policy also provides additional coverage with respect to rebuilding for Consequential Loss ($5 million), Debris removal and Cost of Clean Up ($5 million), Land Improvements ($1 million), and Post Loss Inflation ($1 million). Rental Value and Business Personal Property are not currently involved in the dispute. Insurers can correct their bad-faith handling of the reconstruction by paying their proportionate shares of the $32,865,000 bid proposal plus any increase in cost that will be incurred since the date the bid was lost, January 20, 2025, due to Insurers’ failure to timely and properly adjust this claim, minus applicable payments already made. This is not a settlement offer. It does not include the amount due for the coverages listed in the above paragraph, architectural or engineering fees, bad faith damages, or attorneys’ fees. This notice is being given pursuant to section 624.155(3)(b)5., Florida Statutes, to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by section 624.155.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
tld@beggslane.com 10-19-2025 The parties. have resolved their differences related to this CRN.
ccapeles@wshblaw.com 03-28-2025 This is the response of Certain Interested Underwriters at Lloyd's London Subscribing to Policy No. AMR58799-01 ("Underwriters") to the Civil Remedy Notices of Insurer Violations (“CRN”) filed on behalf of Gulf Coast Rehabilitation Center, Inc. and 1937 Jenks, LLC (“Complainant”) and bearing filing number 803594. The acceptance date of the CRN is January 27, 2025. As explained more fully herein, the CRN is facially deficient. To the extent that a response is required, this response is timely. Underwriters deny the allegations within the CRN and/or any implication that it has acted unfairly towards the Complainant. Accordingly, Underwriters welcome the opportunity to respond to the CRN and specifically deny all allegations that they have acted in bad faith. That said, Underwriters assert that the CRN fails to comply with the specific notice and information requirements as set forth in Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation document provisions, Florida Statute § 624.155, and Florida case law. First, the CRN is facially deficient because it incorrectly states the claim number. Section 624.155(3)(b) provides that “[t]he notice shall be on a form provided by the department.” Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 69J-123.002(1) further specifies that “[t]he civil remedy notice required by section 624.155, F.S. shall be electronically submitted on Form DFS-10-363.” “Accordingly, the five criteria listed in § 624.155 and the additional information requested on Form DFS-10-363 must be stated with specificity.” Pin-Pon Corp. v. Landmark Am. Ins. Co., 500 F. Supp. 3d 1336, 1340 (S.D. Fla. 2020). See also Wopshall v. Travelers Home & Marine Ins. Co., No. 18-14424-CIV, 2021 WL 1247501, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 29, 2021). Thus, the failure to accurately identify the claim number renders the CRN invalid on its face. The CRN also incorrectly identifies Underwriters as an “Authorized Insurer” when, in fact, Underwriters are a non-admitted surplus lines carriers. Additionally, Form DFS-10-363 requires the “Insurer Name.” As such, when an insurer is not specifically named in a civil remedy notice, the notice requirement of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, is not met as to that insurer. Sandalwood Estates Homeowner's Ass'n, Inc. v. Empire Indem. Ins. Co., 665 F. Supp.2d 1355 (S.D. Fla. 2009); Lopez v. Geico Casualty Co., 968 F. Supp.2d 1202 (S.D. Fla. 2013). Here, the “Notice Against” section simply names “UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S, LONDON.” The Insurers under the Policy reserve all rights on this issue. Second, the CRN must include a description of the facts and circumstances giving rise to the insurer’s alleged violation as [the Complainant] understands them,” and identify with specificity the individuals responsible or with most knowledge of the facts underlying the Complainant’s allegations. The purpose of these components of a CRN is to provide an insurer with the requisite information to investigate and resolve the allegations. The CRN fails to identify such individuals. The CRN then alleges that Underwriters have engaged in Claim Delay, Unfair Trade Practice and Misrepresentation in violation of §§ 624.155(b)(1), 626.9541(1)(i)(2), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) and/or 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g). The CRN does not accurately reflect Underwriters' handling of the Claim. As to the facts reportedly supporting the Complainant’s allegations, the CRN alleges that Underwriters' decision to solicit comparative bids and/or failure to agree to the Complainant’s bid within sixty days are violations. The CRN further alleges that Underwriters' identification of a contractor providing a comparative bid within thirty-seven days of its request and the mere fact that Venue’s bid presented a significant decrease from those obtained by the Complainant are also violations. Yet, the narrative fails to identify with any specificity the manner in which such conduct, even if taken as true, is a violation of the enumerated statute(s). In addition, Underwriters are not required to agree to the Complainant’s bid as there is nothing contained in the policy or settlement agreement that requires such action. Next, the CRN alleges that correspondence on behalf of the insurers dated January 20, 2025, misrepresented the application of a $25 Million sub-limit for Demolition and Increased Costs of Construction as well as the remaining cumulative liability of the insurers. Underwriters' overall limits of liability are 7.5% of $200,000,000 in excess of the deductible. In addition, the policy contains a sublimit of $25,000,000 for demolition and increased cost of construction of which Underwriters have tendered its proportionate share of $5,000,000 as an advance towards this sublimit. Accordingly, the remaining code limit is $20,000,000 and Underwriters' remaining proportionate share of that limit is $1,500,000. The $1,401,668.00 figure represented in the previous correspondence was not code related. The CRN concludes as follows: The Insurers can correct their bad-faith handling of the reconstruction by paying their proportionate shares of the $32,865,000 bid proposal plus any increase in cost that will be incurred since the date the bid was lost, January 20, 2025, due to Insurers’ failure to timely and properly adjust this claim, minus applicable payments already made. The “cure’ demanded of Underwriters within the CRN is an advance payment for its proportionate share of an estimated cost for rebuild, together with other unknown costs. Notably, an insurer can only be required to take curative action that is within the terms of the subject policy. The relevant policy language is as follows: 15. Demolition and Increased Cost of Construction In the event of insured loss or damage insured under this policy that causes the enforcement of any law, ordinance and/or governmental directive regulating the demolition, construction, repair, replacement or use of insured property the Insurer shall be liable for: *** 3) The increased cost of repair or reconstruction, whichever is less, of the damaged and undamaged property on the same or another site and limited to the costs that would have been incurred in order to comply with the minimum requirements of such law, ordinance and/or governmental directive regulating the repair or reconstruction or use of the damaged property. However, the Insurer shall not be liable for any increased cost of construction loss unless the damaged property is actually rebuilt or replaced; *** The foregoing policy language does not impose liability upon Underwriters for the Increased Cost of Construction until “the damaged property is actually rebuilt or replaced.” The CRN demands action from the Insurers prior to such rebuild, together with an agreement to cover unknown future costs in contravention of the policy provisions referenced above. As set forth herein, Underwriters have acted fairly and properly towards the Complainant. Underwriters maintain that they have complied with all applicable statutory and contractual obligations. We trust that this response fully addresses the allegations in the CRN. Should you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact us at your convenience.
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