Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     803656
Filing Accepted:  1/27/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
PINEBROOK WOODS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.   First Name  
Street Address * 13004-13272 TALL PINE CIRCLE
City, State Zip * FORT MYERS, FL 33907
Email Address * ALFONSOJ.DASILVA@GMAIL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   PINEBROOK WOODS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.   First Name  
Policy # * HCP000372-7 Claim #* H102467
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* BOYD First Name * CALSIE Initial M
Street Address* 3001 17TH STREET
City, State Zip* METAIRIE , LOUISIANA 70002
Email Address * CBOYD@HSTALAW.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   HERITAGE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 14407
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* MICAH TOMPKINS
Type of Insurance * Commercial Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Claim Delay
Unfair Trade Practice
Claim Denial
* 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.
624.155(1)(b)(3) Except as to liability coverages, failing to promptly settle claims, when the obligation to settle a claim has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e) Failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and, as to partial coverage, the dollar amount or extent of coverage, or failing to provide a written statement that the claim is being investigated, upon the written request of the insured within 30 days after proof-of-loss statements have been completed.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f) Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of the basis in the insurance policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h) Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i) Failing to pay personal injury protection insurance claims within the time periods required by s. 627.736(4)(b).
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

VARIOUS LANGUAGE THROUGHOUT THE POLICY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO PROVISIONS GOVERNING COVERAGE FOR ROOF DAMAGE, WATER DAMAGE, WINDSTORM DAMAGE, THE LOSS PAYMENT PROVISION(S), THE PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE INSURER; AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTY COVERAGE PART; BUILDING AND PERSONAL PROPERTY COVERAGE FORM; CAUSES OF LOSS – SPECIAL FORM; COMMERCIAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS; PROPERTY ENHANCEMENT ENDORSEMENT LIMITED ORDINANCE OR LAW – EXTENSION OF COVERAGE; ROOF/ACTUAL CASH VALUE ENDORSEMENT. HERITAGE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY HURRICANE DEDUCTIBLE.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

IN FLORIDA, THE WORK OF ADJUSTING INSURANCE CLAIMS ENGAGES THE PUBLIC TRUST. HERITAGE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY HAS BREACHED THIS DUTY THROUGH ITS HANDLING OF THE CLAIM. THE INSURER HAS FAILED TO EVALUATE CLAIMS HANDLING AND TRAINING AND SUPERVISION OF ITS EMPLOYEES AND REPRESENTATIVES RESULTING IN STATUTORY VIOLATIONS AS SET FORTH WITHIN THIS CRN: 1) FAILURE TO PAY CLAIM IN FULL; 2) FAILURE TO PROMPTLY INVESTIGATE CLAIM; 3) FAILURE TO PROPERLY INVESTIGATE CLAIM; 4) FAILURE TO ADJUST LOSS; 5) FAILURE TO ACT IN DUE DILIGENCE AND GOOD FAITH TO RESOLVE CLAIM; 6) PLACING FINANCIAL INTEREST OF INSURER BEFORE THAT OF POLICY HOLDERS AND CLAIMANTS; 7) FAILURE TO PROPERLY TRAIN, EVALUATE AND MANAGE ADJUSTERS; 8) LOOKING FOR WAYS TO DENY COVERAGE, PAY LESS, DELAY PAYMENT AND OTHERWISE “LOW BALL” OR “STONE WALL” CLAIM; 9) THE REASONS FOR THIS MAY BE ATTRIBUTED TO IMPROPER TRAINING, SUPERVISION, AND/OR MOTIVATION OF ADJUSTERS AND CLAIMS SUPERVISORS. THE INSURER APPEARS TO HAVE FAILED TO ADOPT THE PROPER STANDARDS OF INVESTIGATION AND ADJUSTMENT OF LOSSES OR IS OTHERWISE NOT IMPLEMENTING THOSE STANDARDS BECAUSE FULL PAYMENT AND PROMPT PAYMENT FOR THE LOSS IS NOT OCCURRING. THIS COMPLAINT IS MADE ON THE BEHALF OF THE NAMED INSURED, PINEBROOK WOODS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. IN CONSIDERATION OF THE PREMIUMS PAID TO THE INSURANCE COMPANY, HERITAGE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, A POLICY OF INSURANCE WAS ISSUED TO PINEBROOK WOODS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., WHICH PROVIDED COVERAGE FOR CERTAIN LOSSES-INCLUDING WIND DAMAGE ASSOCIATED WITH HURRICANE IAN. DURING THE POLICY PERIOD, HURRICANE IAN CAUSED CONSIDERABLE DAMAGE TO THE INSURED'S PROPERTY AND OTHER STRUCTURES. THE INSURED PROPERTY SUFFERED DAMAGE WHICH WAS AND IS COVERED BY THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE INSURANCE POLICY. THE LOSS WAS SUDDEN AND ACCIDENTAL, AND THEREFORE A COVERED PERIL UNDER THE POLICY. PINEBROOK WOODS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. PROMPTLY REPORTED THE LOSS TO THE INSURANCE COMPANY AND HAS COMPLIED WITH ALL THE CONDITIONS OF THE POLICY. AFTER AN INSUFFICIENT INVESTIGATION AND THE PREPARATION OF A LACK LUSTER ESTIMATE, THE INSURANCE COMPANY UNDERVALUED AND UNDERPAID THE DAMAGES TO THE INSURED PROPERTY BY DETERMINING THAT THE DAMAGES RELATING TO THE CLAIM CONTAINED ITEMS UNRELATED TO HURRICANE IAN DAMAGE AND THAT PINEBROOK WOODS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.’S ROOFS HAD DAMAGES THAT COULD BE REPAIRED RATHER THAN REPLACING THE ROOFS. DUE TO CONCERNS WITH THE DELAY IN THE INVESTIGATION AND THE INSURANCE COMPANY’S UNDERVALUE AND UNDERPAYMENT OF THE CLAIM, THE INSURED RETAINED AN EXPERIENCED AND HIGHLY QUALIFIED PUBLIC ADJUSTER-DAY ADJUSTING-TO PREPARE AN ESTIMATE OF DAMAGE. AFTER THE CLAIM COULD NOT BE RESOLVED PRIOR TO FOLLOWING SUIT, INSURED FILED SUIT AGAINST THE INSURER. THE INSURED HIRED AN EXPERT TO EVALUATE THE DAMAGE AND ALSO PREPARE AN ESTIMATE AND SUPPORTING REPORT. THE ESTIMATED COST OF REPAIRS TO THE INSURED PROPERTY CURRENTLY STANDS AT APPROXIMATELY $ 8,638,026.43. THE INSURED HAS PROVIDED THE INSURER WITH DOCUMENTATION SUPPORTING THE MITIGATION OF THEIR DAMAGES ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR CLAIM FROM. THE INSURED HAS MADE AN APPLICATION FOR INSURANCE BENEFITS UNDER THE POLICY BUT THE INSURANCE COMPANY HAS FAILED AND/OR REFUSED TO PAY THE FULL BENEFITS TO WHICH THE INSURED IS ENTITLED FOR THE LOSS. THE INSURANCE COMPANY HAS BREACHED THE POLICY OF INSURANCE BY FAILING TO PAY ALL OF THE BENEFITS DUE UNDER THE POLICY. THE INSURANCE COMPANY HAS FAILED TO SATISFACTORILY SETTLE THIS CLAIM AND HAS DEPRIVED THE INSURED OF A PROPER RESOLUTION OF THIS CLAIM. THE INSURANCE COMPANY HAS FAILED AND/OR REFUSED TO PROPERLY INVESTIGATE THE LOSS AND HAS FAILED AND/OR REFUSED TO TENDER THE PROPER AMOUNT OF INSURANCE BENEFITS DUE AND OWING TO THE INSURED. IN ORDER TO CURE THE CONDUCT GIVING RISE TO THE VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED HEREIN, THE INSURANCE COMPANY MUST COMPLETE A PROPER EVALUATION OF THE DAMAGES VIA QUALIFIED PROFESSIONALS AND IMMEDIATELY ISSUE PAYMENT FOR ALL THE COVERED DAMAGES PRESENTED BY THE INSURED AND THE INSURED’S REPRESENTATIVES. IN ADDITION, THE INSURANCE COMPANY MUST ISSUE PAYMENT TO THE INSURED FOR REASONABLE FEES, COSTS, AND PRE-JUDGMENT INTEREST IF REQUIRED BY THE APPLICABLE FLORIDA STATUTES. AS AN ALTERNATIVE CURE OPTION, THE INSURANCE COMPANY MAY CURE THE ALLEGATIONS GIVING RISE TO THIS NOTICE BY TENDERING A CHECK IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,638,026.43, LESS THE APPLICABLE DEDUCTIBLE AND PRIOR PAYMENTS, WITHIN THE 60-DAY CURE PERIOD, JOINTLY PAYABLE TO “HAIR SHUNNARAH TRIAL ATTORNEYS, DAY ADJUSTING AND PINEBROOK WOODS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.”
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
cboyd@hstalaw.com 03-31-2025 Pursuant to Insured's entry on 3/28/2025, the representative of Insurer, Heritage, is Micah Tompkins, not Michael Thompkins.
cboyd@hstalaw.com 03-28-2025 Heritage, by and through its representatives, Michael Thompkins and Cooper Bennett, made material false representations to Insured with knowledge of their falsity and with reckless disregard of the truth with the intention that such representations be acted and relied upon by Insured to Insured’s detriment. Specifically, during his deposition on March 26, 2025, Scott Zarling, an independent adjuster hired by Heritage who conducted inspections of the Property on October 13, 2022, October 20, 2022, November 3, 2022, and November 8, 2022, and generated estimates of the damage to the Property for Heritage, testified that Heritage altered the estimates he completed. Further, during his deposition, Mr. Zarling also indicated that he completed a written report on Heritage’s behalf in December of 2022 – that written report was never provided to Insured prior to Mr. Zarling’s deposition. During the deposition, counsel for Heritage produced a PDF version of what was purported to be Mr. Zarling’s report; however, the report produced stated that it was “supplemental”. When counsel for Insured asked Mr. Zarling about the original, Mr. Zarling indicated that it had been provided to Heritage. Counsel for Insured requested that counsel for Heritage also send the original report at that time. Upon completion of Mr. Zarling’s deposition, Heritage still had not provided the requested original report. It was not until counsel for Insured followed up via email with counsel for Heritage that the original report was produced, in word format. The report reflects substantial changes from the supplemental report PDF produced by Heritage during Mr. Zarling’s deposition – notably, the original report documents extensive damage throughout the Property. Heritage, by and through its representatives, Michael Thompkins and Cooper Bennett, manipulated and altered the reports and estimates completed by Mr. Zarling in order to deny and/or underpay Insured’s claim and Heritage deliberately withheld evidence of these manipulated and altered reports and estimates with knowledge of their falsity and with reckless disregard of the truth with the intention that such representations be acted and relied upon by Insured to Insured’s detriment. As a direct and proximate result of such fraud, Insured has suffered and continues to suffer damages. Insured has further become obligated to engage the undersigned attorney for the prosecution of this action and is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees.
jrubinton@rubintonlaw.com 03-28-2025 March 28, 2025 VIA Certified Mail: 9407111898765445273281 Florida Department of Financial Services Consumer Assistance, c/o: Civil Remedy Section Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0322 E-mail Correspondence: 9407111898765445274936 Pinebrook Woods Homeowners Association, Inc. c/o Calsie M. Boyd 3001 17th Street Metairie, Louisiana 70002 Re: CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE OF INSURER VIOLATIONS Complainant: Pinebrook Woods Homeowners Association, Inc. Policy Number: HCP000372-7 Claim Number : H102467 Date of Loss (as claimed): September 28, 2022 DFS Filing Number: 803656 DFS Acceptance Date: January 27, 2025 Dear Sir or Madam: This correspondence constitutes Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company’s (“Heritage”) response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation filed by Pinebrook Woods Homeowners Association, Inc. (the “Insured” or “Complainant”), regarding the claim listed above. While Heritage welcomes the opportunity to respond to this Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation and specifically denies each and every allegation contained in the Civil Remedy Notice filed in relation to this claim, Heritage believes that the Civil Remedy Notice 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 Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation document provisions as promulgated in Florida Statute §624.155 and Florida Case law. Florida Statute §624.155(3)(b)(2), requires the Complainant to “describe the facts and circumstances giving rise to the insurer’s violation”, to enable the insurer to investigate and resolve the claim. Contrary to the requirement set forth in the statute, this CRN contains overbroad and incorrect allegations, which stem only from the Complainant’s opinions regarding the value of its own claim, and therefore, the Complainant’s opinions regarding Heritage’s adjustment of this claim. The CRN is void of factual basis for these alleged violations. Additionally, the tenor and inferences of the allegations in the Notice are without merit and Heritage denies each and every one. Below are some of the facts regarding this claim that were not included in the Complainant’s Notice. For clarification Heritage is providing a brief history of the claim to date. Subject to its terms, endorsements, limitations, exclusions, and conditions, Heritage insured the Complainant under a Commercial Policy, with Policy number HCP000372-7. The Policy of Insurance applies to direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property at the premises decribed in the Declarations of said Policy by or resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss as described in said Policy. On or about October 1, 2022, Complainant reported a loss to Heritage due to alleged Hurricane Ian damage to the subject property. Heritage promptly assigned a Claims Adjuster to communicate with the Insured’s representative to coordinate an inspection and adjust the requested claim. Heritage also received a letter of representation from a Public Adjsuter, Blake Day, on October 9, 2022. An independent adjuster (“IA”) inspected the subject property for three days and found damages to the property resulting from Hurricane Ian. The IA’s inspection was limited to the roofs as it had been reported there were no damages to interior of the property. Upon conclusion of his initial involvement, the IA prepared an initial estimate of the damages. Heritage further retained an engineering firm, Intertek, and a roofing contractor, Tornado Construction of Florida, to inspect the property and provide an opinion as to the cause and origin of the damages. Intertek’s inspection, conducted January 9 through 11, 2023, found further damage related to the reported date of loss, and further opined that the required methodology of repair would include replacement of some of the roofs and using those tiles to repair the remainder of the roofs at the Property. Heritage received a letter of representation from counsel for Complainant on May 26, 2023. The letter was accompanied by a request for documentation, which Heritage complied with. Ultimately Heritage issued its coverage determination based upon its complete investigation on June 12, 2023. Heritage’s estimation of the damages was $222,837.77, which after application of the hurricane deductible and applicable depreciation resulted in a net payment of $65,628.39. Heritage’s coverage determination included a detailed breakdown of the payment and reasoning for its decision. Contrary to Complainant’s allegations, Heritage has taken substantial action to investigate Complainant’s claim, and has timely communicated with Complainant with regard to same. Therefore, the CRN’s allegation that Heritage failed to, in good faith, properly investigate the claim is baseless, as it is clear that upon receiving its first notice of the loss, Heritage promptly inspected the subject property and is continuing its investigation. The Civil Remedy Notice requires the Complainant, “pursuant to section 624.155, F.S., to indicate all statutory provisions alleged to have been violated.” The notice filed in this matter alleges Heritage violated the following statutory provisions: 1. 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 his or her interests. Response: Heritage denies the allegation contained herein. This is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. The Claim was properly adjusted and investigated at each stage of the investigation. Further, Heritage requested mediation pre-suit in good faith and attempted to resolve the matter with Complainant. 2. 624.155(1)(b)(3): Except as to liability coverages, failing to promptly settle claims, when the obligation to settle a claim has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage. Response: Heritage denies the allegation contained herein. This is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. The Claim was properly adjusted and investigated at each stage of reporting. There are no allegations within Complainant’s CRN regarding any instances where Heritage “influenced” settlements under other portions of the insurance policy. 3. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. Response: Heritage denies the allegation contained herein. The Complainant fails to describe any facts and/or circumstances regarding the failure to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. This is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. 4. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b): Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. Response: Heritage denies the allegation contained herein. The Complainant fails to allege any support or facts stating any misrepresentation of facts or of the insurance provisions by Heritage. This is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. 5. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c): Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. Response: Heritage denies the allegation contained herein. This is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. Heritage has at all times communicated with the Complainant and its representatives. 6. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d): Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information. Response: Heritage denies the allegation contained herein. This is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. Furthermore, the claim was not denied by Heritage, it was afforded coverage and payment issued as permitted by the Policy. 7. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e): Failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and, as to partial coverage, the dollar amount or extent of coverage, or failing to provide a written statement that the claim is being investigated, upon the written request of the insured within 30 days after proof-of-loss statements have been completed. Response: Heritage denies the allegation contained herein. This is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. 8. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f): Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of the basis in the insurance policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement. Response: Heritage denies the allegation contained herein. This is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. The Claim was properly adjusted and investigated at each stage of the investigation, with Heritage appropriately explaining the reasoning for its determination in its coverage determination letter. 9. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h): Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary. Response: Heritage denies the allegation contained herein. This is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. Complainant fails to state any allegations or instances where an explanation was required as to documentation requested by Heritage. Moreover, Heritage has not denied coverage for this claim nor alleged that Complainant failed to produce information requested. 10. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i): Failing to pay personal injury protection insurance claims within the time periods required by s. 627.736(4)(b) Response: Heritage denies the allegation contained herein. This is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. As detailed by the facts stated above, Heritage did not violate any of the aforementioned statute sections. Heritage has and continues to diligently and thoroughly investigate the subject claim. Heritage has continuously provided updates regarding the investigation of Complainant’s claim and provided detailed explanation with regards to its ongoing efforts in furtherance of same. Furthermore, contrary to the requirement to “describe the facts and circumstances giving rise to the insurer’s violation as you understand them at this time”, the purpose of which is “to enable the insurer to investigate and resolve [the] claim”, the CRN provides incorrect allegations with no basis in fact or circumstances. More specifically, the facts merely allege that because the Insured believes they are entitled to additional payment, that Heritage acted in bad faith without any specific facts to substantiate the same allegation. The tenor and inferences of the allegations in the CRN are wholly without merit and Heritage denies each and every one. In addition, contrary to the requirement and purpose of the civil remedy notice, the Claimant fails to identify any cure; rather only makes the blanket statement that Heritage should have paid the full amount requested by the Insured. This proposed solution is the functional equivalent of “pay me everything I've asked for.” Insurers are not required to pay any amount demanded by their insureds to avoid a bad-faith claim. Rousso v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., No. 10-cv-20554, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82328, at *14-15 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 13, 2010). In short, the Notice reflects and an approach contrary to the purpose of the statute. See e.g., Heritage Corp. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. co., 580 F. Supp. 2d 1294 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (applying Florida law). The Notice must reflect a good-faith effort to inform Heritage of how it has fallen short of its obligations under the policy and what it can do to fix its shortcomings. The Notice is insufficient as a matter of law. Under § 624.155, Heritage is entitled to specific policy related details about how Heritage fell short of its obligations to provide additional coverage pursuant to the terms of the insurance agreement and a tangible cure for the same. As such, the Notice is deficient, and the Complainant has failed to comply with several conditions precedent to bringing a claim under § 624.155. Finally, Fla. Stat. § 624.155 sanctions recovery of extra-contractual damages in insurance disputes when the insurance carrier fails to attempt in good faith to settle a claim. The statute requires the Insureds to file a Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation as a condition precedent to the bad faith cause of action. The Statute demands strict compliance and lays out specific notice requirements that must be met for the Notice to be legally sufficient. The filing of a legally sufficient Civil Remedy Notice is not only a condition precedent but is essential to the procedural integrity of an action for bad faith. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Clohessy, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1328 (M.D. Fla. 1998); see also Talat Enters. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). The statute’s clear and unambiguous standards for proper notice requires the claimant to state with specificity the facts and circumstances giving rise to the alleged violation and to reference the policy language relevant to such alleged violations. Furthermore, the purpose of a Civil Remedy Notice is to allow an insurer the opportunity to rectify bad faith claims handling to avoid unnecessary litigation, not aid the Complainant in already ongoing litigious proceedings. See Lane v. Westfield Ins. Co., 862 So.2d 774 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). In this matter, the Civil Remedy Notice fails to provide policy language relevant to the alleged violations, and further, it fails to allow the insurer an opportunity to rectify or cure any alleged bad faith handling. In closing, Heritage contends and the record supports that the CRN should be rejected and returned by the Department of Financial Services due to its failure to comply with Florida Statute §624.155 and Florida Case law, and regardless of the rejection, Heritage denies all allegations contained in the CRN and submits there are no violations. While this response is meant to be comprehensive, Heritage’s response above is based upon the information provided in the Civil Remedy Notice and the information Heritage has to date. If the Complainant feels that we are not in possession of all the facts, please inform us immediately. Please note that Heritage’s response is not necessarily exhaustive and does not preclude us from asserting any other valid reason for seeking rejection and return of the Civil Remedy Notice. Also, this letter or any act or failure to act on the part of Heritage or any agent or representative of Heritage should not be construed as a waiver of any rights or defenses available to it by contract or at law as all such rights and defenses are hereby specifically reserved. We trust that this response addresses the allegations of insurer violation alleged in the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation. Should you have any questions regarding this matter or need anything further, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, /s/ Jesus R. Goatache Jesus R. Goatache, Esq.
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