Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     803805
Filing Accepted:  1/28/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
HENDRICK   First Name   AMANDA
Street Address * 77 SANDALWOOD DRIVE
City, State Zip * SANTA ROSA BEACH, FL 32459-64
Email Address * AMANDA@AMANDAHENDRICK.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   HENDRICK   First Name   AMANDA
Policy # * OICF0014854-02 Claim #* 24FLDFV0015363
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* KRAPF First Name * GRANT Initial W
Street Address* 2790 SUNSET POINT RD
City, State Zip* CLEARWATER , FL 33759
Email Address * GRANT@KRAPFLEGAL.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   OLYMPUS INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 12954
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* SHANE MCCARTIN, JONATHAN WILLIAMS, NICK KRESL, AND ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL FROM, OR AGENT OF, OLYMPUS INSURANCE COMPANY WHO WAS INVOLVED IN THE CLAIM.
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
Claim Delay
Unfair Trade Practice
Other : Misrepresenting the terms of the insurance policy
Other : Not treating the Insured with good faith claims conduct
Other : Looking for ways to deny full recovery to the Insured
Other : Looking for ways to delay full recovery to the Insured
Other : Failing to properly investigate the Insured's loss
Other : Failing to provide the Insured with the full benefits awarded under the contract of insurance in a t
Other : Not training, supervising, or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made
Other : Not adjusting claims and evaluating loss properly
Other : Shifting the burden of insuring the loss to the Insured
Other : Intentionally misstating the terms, conditions, and benefits of the insurance policy to the insured
Other : Failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims
* Statutory provision(s) which the insurer allegedly violated.
 
624.155(1)(b)(1) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests.
626.9541(1)(i)(2) A material misrepresentation made to an insured or any other person having an interest in the proceeds payable under such contract or policy, for the purpose and with the intent of effecting settlement of such claims, loss, or damage under such contract or policy on less favorable terms than those provided in, and contemplated by, such contract or policy.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

627.70131(7)(a)Within 60 days after an insurer receives notice of an initial, reopened, or supplemental property insurance claim from a policyholder, the insurer shall pay or deny such claim or a portion of the claim unless the failure to pay is caused by factors beyond the control of the insurer. The insurer shall provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the policyholder of the basis in the insurance policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for the payment, denial, or partial denial of a claim. If the insurer's claim payment is less than specified in any insurer's detailed estimate of the amount of the loss, the insurer must provide a reasonable explanation in writing of the difference to the policyholder. Any payment of an initial or supplemental claim or portion of such claim made 60 days after the insurer receives notice of the claim, or made after the expiration of any additional timeframe provided to pay or deny a claim or a portion of a claim made pursuant to an order of the office finding factors beyond the control of the insurer, whichever is later, bears interest at the rate set forth in s. 55.03. Interest begins to accrue from the date the insurer receives notice of the claim. The provisions of this subsection may not be waived, voided, or nullified by the terms of the insurance policy. If there is a right to prejudgment interest, the insured must select whether to receive prejudgment interest or interest under this subsection. Interest is payable when the claim or portion of the claim is paid. Failure to comply with this subsection constitutes a violation of this code. However, failure to comply with this subsection does not form the sole basis for a private cause of action. Reference to specific policy language: The violations alleged are statutorily based and do not rely on any specific policy language. "It is an accepted principle of law that when parties contract upon a matter which is the subject of statutory regulation, the parties are presumed to have entered into their agreement with reference to such statute, which becomes a part of the contract, unless the contract discloses a contrary intention." Westside EKG Assocs. v. Found. Health, 932 So. 2d 214, 216 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), aff'd, 944 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 2006).
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Olympus Insurance Company (the "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 the financial interest of Insurer before that of the policyholder and the Insured; 3) looking for ways to deny benefit payments and otherwise "low ball" or "stone wall" claims; 4) not adjusting the claims promptly and fairly; 5) not attempting in good faith to settle claims; 6) conducting inadequate investigations; 7) failing to employ policies and procedures to conduct adequate investigations; 8) denying a claim which it knew or should have known the policy and Florida law provided coverage for; 9) misrepresenting the terms of the insurance policy; and 10) failing to render a claims determination within sixty (60) days. On or about August 3, 2024, while the subject policy was in full force and effect, the Insured's property was severely damaged by Hurricane Debby. The Insured timely submitted a claim on August 5, 2024, to the Insurer for hurricane damage and the ensuing damage therefrom. Thereafter, the Insurer assigned claim number 24FLDFV0015363 to the loss and sent a field adjuster and engineer to inspect the property. Then in a letter dated October 30, 2024, the Insurer notified the Insured that it was denying coverage for the loss. This coverage decision is incorrect. Denying coverage for the damage was wrongful as the damages are covered under the policy. Upon receiving notice of the loss, the Insurer had the duty to provide the full benefits under the policy. This includes providing the Insured with a proper investigation and the funds necessary to return the home to its pre-loss condition. However, when the Insurer conducted its inspection of the insured property, the Insurer's adjuster failed to conduct a thorough and adequate investigation, or the adjuster intentionally ignored the damage observed and failed to make truthful and unbiased reports of the facts after investigating. As a result, the Insurer breached the policy by failing to fully indemnify the Insured for the covered loss. The Insurer misrepresented the loss and wrongfully denied coverage for the damage sustained to the Insured's property. According to the claims determination letter, the Insurer's engineer observed damage to the insured property but attributed the cause of this damage to causes excluded under the policy. However, the Insurer knows or should know that when independent perils converge and no single cause can be considered the sole or proximate cause, it is appropriate to apply the concurring cause doctrine. Sebo v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 208 So. 3d 694, 697 (Fla. 2016). The concurring cause doctrine states that coverage may exist where an insured risk constitutes a concurrent cause of the loss even when it is not the prime or efficient cause. Id. at 698. A covered peril that meets with an uncovered peril may still provide for coverage under a policy when the covered peril triggered the events that eventually led to the loss. Id. at 697. The Insurer intentionally ignored covered damage to deny the reported loss and wrongfully fail to pay the Insured. This is an underhanded attempt to place the financial interests of the Insurer over those of the Insured and to delay and frustrate the Insured's ability to have his claim adjusted promptly to begin restoring his property. Additionally, although there was interior water damage the adjuster did not use a moisture meter. A moisture meter can be purchased online from Amazon for around $40 before tax. The Insurer could purchase a moisture meter and assess thousands of properties with one meter. Instead, the Insurer would rather place its financial interests over those of the Insured by failing to provide the adjuster with the necessary tools to correctly inspect the loss. As a result of the inadequate investigation and surrounding circumstances it is apparent that Insurer significantly underestimated the scope of the loss to the Insured's property. Insurer and its adjuster have colluded to misrepresent the true scope of damages to the insured property and the true replacement costs of the damages. This is an underhanded attempt to place the financial interest of Insurer over those of the Insured, to delay the Insured's claim, and to delay the Insured in restoring his property to its pre-loss condition. The Insurer has placed obstacles to its Insured's ability to have the claim adjusted promptly to begin restoring the home by waiting more than sixty (60) days after receiving notice of the Insured's claim to make a claims determination. The Insured first reported the loss on August 5, 2024. The Insurer did not render a claims determination until October 30, 2024. Under Fla. Stat. 627.70131(7)(a), "[w]ithin 60 days after an insurer receives notice of an initial, reopened, or supplemental property insurance claim from a policyholder, the insurer shall pay or deny such claim or a portion of the claim unless the failure to pay is caused by factors beyond the control of the insurer." There were no factors outside of the Insurer's control. As such, in addition to the below requirements to cure this CRN, any payment made to the Insured must contain interest for the damage as a result of the loss from the date the Insurer received first notice of the loss. There may be further wrongful conduct which has not been made known to the Insured at this moment. Certain conduct or actions may be discovered throughout discovery or cannot be verified without a review of the Insurer's claim file and standards and procedures for the adjustment and investigation of claims. In short, the Insurer is not acting with due regard for the Insured's interests or safety. In Florida the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. The Insurer has breached this trust and its duty to the Insured. The Insurer and its agents conducted cursory and inadequate investigations and wrongfully denied coverage for a loss that should have been covered under the subject policy. Moreover, the Insurer has engaged in bad faith practices designed to delay claims and prevent the Insured from recovering what is rightfully owed under the subject policy of insurance. The Insurer's actions and inactions have continued to frustrate and delay the resolution of the Insured claim. The Insurer's actions amount to but are not limited to the following: 1. Claim denial 2. Claim delay 3. Not treating the Insured with good faith claims conduct 4. Looking for way to reduce recovery to the Insured 5. Looking for ways to deny recovery to the Insured 6. Not adjusting claims and evaluating loss properly, promptly and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to the Insured 7. Not training, supervising or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made, but rather placing the company's interests before the Insured's interests 8. Placing the financial interest of the Insurer over that of the health and safety of the Insured 9. Shifting the burden of investigating onto the Insured 10. Conducting inadequate investigations 11. Failing to render a written claims determination to the Insured within 60 days 12. Making material misrepresentations Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this civil remedy notice, the Insurer must: (1). Admit full coverage for the Insured's loss. (2). Tender full benefits owed to the Insured under the insurance contract. A copy of this form submitted to the FDFS has been sent via e-mail to the following parties providing them notice of the filing of the civil remedy notice. Please e-mail any response to this civil remedy notice to badfaith@krapflegal.com. Via E-mail: Olympus Insurance Company PO Box 33117 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33420 olympusclaims@oigfl.com
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
lalhanti@wallenkelley.com 05-23-2025 May 23, 2025 Florida Department of Financial Services Consumer Assistance/Civil Remedy Section Larson Bldg., 200 E. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0322 Complainant: Amanda Hendrick Address: 77 Sandalwood Drive, Santa Rosa Beach, FL 32459 Attorney: Grant W. Krapf, Esq., Krapf Legal, P.A. Address: 2790 Sunset Point Road, Clearwater, FL 33759 Claim: 24FLDFV0015363 DOL: 8/3/2024 DOI File: 803805 Filing Date: 1/28/2025 To Whom It May Concern: Please accept this as the supplemental response of Olympus Insurance Company (hereafter “Olympus”) to the purported Civil Remedy Notice (hereafter Purported Notice”) filed by the Complainant. This response is specifically in regard to Claim 24FLDFV0015363. This response is specifically in regard to Claim 24FLDFV0015363. The Insureds are Matthew Hendrick and Amanda Hendrick. The property located at 77 Sandalwood Drive, Santa Rosa Beach, FL 32459 (hereafter the “Property”) is insured by Olympus under policy OICF0014854-02 with the effective dates of that policy being June 30, 2024, through June 30, 2025. As noted below, the parties have settled this claim, and thus, this Civil Remedy Notice is now moot. Nevertheless, Olympus responds as follows: Statement of Facts This matter arises from a windstorm claim at the Insureds’ Santa Rosa County residence. Olympus denies the allegations in this Purported Notice and further asserts that this Purported Notice fails to comply with Florida law and is fatally deficient. I. Claim 24FLDFV0015363 Olympus was provided first notice of this claim on or about August 5, 2024. Olympus immediately assigned claim number 24FLDFV0015363 and a Claim Examiner to the file. Olympus additionally sent the Insured a claim acknowledgement letter, the homeowner’s bill of rights, a sworn proof of loss form. Olympus communicated with its Insureds, reviewed all information received through its investigation, inspected the property multiple times, including conducting an engineer inspection and tendered a coverage determination. Olympus properly and in good faith adjusted the claim and provided the Insureds with a coverage determination pursuant to the terms of the insurance Policy. In short, Olympus complied with all its obligations under the Policy, acted in good faith at all times, and denies the spurious and factually incorrect allegations in this Civil Remedy Notice. II. Nature of the Complainant’s Civil Remedy Complaint The Purported Notice names Olympus and alleges the following statutory violations: (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 towards its insured, (2) a material misrepresentation made to the 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; (3) failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims; (4) misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue; (5) denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information. The Purported Notice is a legal nullity for the reasons and deficiencies discussed below. Florida Statute 624.155 requires a Claimant to provide the Insurer 60 days, written notice of the violation as a condition precedent of commencing a “bad faith” action. Florida Statute 624.155(3) requires the following five (5) pieces of information: 1. The statutory provision, including the specific language of the statute, which the authorized insurer allegedly violated; 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation; 3. The name of any individual involved in the violation; 4. Reference to specific policy language that is relevant to the violation, if any. If the person bringing the civil action is a third party claimant, she or he shall not be required to reference the specific policy language if the authorized insurer has not provided a copy of the policy to the third party claimant pursuant to written request; and 5. A statement that the notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section. The statute also provides that the Civil Remedy Notice shall be “on a form provided by the [Department] and shall state with specificity…such other information as the department may require. The Florida Supreme Court has held that section 624.155, Florida Statutes must be “strictly construed.” Talat Enter., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. And Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1283 (Fla. 2000). Strict construction is appropriate as “this statute is in derogation of the common law.” Id. Accordingly, such an interpretation would mean that statutory bad faith cases cannot proceed unless the claimant has specifically complied with all statutory provisions. Accordingly, such an interpretation would mean that statutory bad faith cases cannot proceed unless the claimant has specifically complied will all statutory requirements. After the promulgation of this statute, the Department created a CRN form: Form DFS-10-363. Form DFS-10-363 lays out 15 requirements: 1. Complainants Name; 2. Complainants Address; 3. Complainants E-mail address; 4. Complainant type (Insured or otherwise); 5. Insured’s Name; 6. Insurance Policy Number; 7. Insurance Claim Number; 8. Attorney’s Name; 9. Attorney’s Address; 10. Attorney’s E-mail Address; 11. Type of Insurer (authorized or otherwise); 12. Name of Insurer; 13. Address of Insurer; 14. Type of Insurance (Commercial Property & Casualty or otherwise); and 15. Reason for Notice. As these requirements are all information required by the Department, according to Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, they each must be stated with specificity. This Purported Notice fails to comply with Florida law and is fatally deficient. III. Civil Remedy Notice Deficiencies i. First Deficiency: The Purported Notice fails to list all “Insureds” under the subject policy, as required by Form DFS-10-363. Specifically, Matthew Hendrick is also a named insured under the subject policy. Consequently, this Purported Notice fails to comply with Florida law and is fatally deficient. This deficiency applies to all allegations in the Purported Notice, supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 626.9541(1)(i)(2), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d). ii. Second Deficiency: Section 624.155(3)(b)(2), Florida Statutes, requires that the Civil Remedy Notice state with specificity the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation. The Purported Notice does not supply facts or circumstances that explain the allegations. Rather, it includes false allegations, incorrect facts, including false information as to the date of loss and timeline of the claims handling, and fails to explain how a thorough investigation and coverage determination, and requesting additional information from the Insureds pursuant to the Policy is a violation of Florida law. Thus, the Purported Notice is invalid for noncompliance with Section 624.155(3)(b)(2), Florida Statutes. This deficiency applies to all allegations in the Purported Notice as Claimant’s Purported Notice also fails to provide any facts as to how Olympus misrepresented facts, what standards the complainant is seeking Olympus implement for the proper investigation of claims, or how was the investigation conducted by Olympus in any way unreasonable. This deficiency applies to all allegations in the Purported Notice, supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b) (1), 626.9541(1)(i)(2), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d). iii. Third Deficiency: Section 624.155(3)(b)(3), Florida Statutes, requires that the Civil Remedy Notice list the names of any individual involved in the violation. While the Purported Notice lists some specific names, it then states, “and any other individual from, or agent of, Olympus Insurance Company who was involved in the claim.” Thus, the Purported Notice is grossly unspecific and invalid for noncompliance with Section 624.155(3)(b)(3), Florida Statutes. This deficiency applies to all allegations in the Purported Notice, supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 626.9541(1)(i) (2), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d). iv. Fourth Deficiency: Section 624.155(3)(b)(3), Florida Statutes, requires the Civil Remedy Notice to reference specific policy language that is relevant to the violation. A third-party claimant is not required to reference specific policy language, absent receipt of a copy of the Policy. However, the Claimant in this Purported Notice is not a third-party claimant, therefore the Purported Notice must include specific language from the subject policy that is relevant to the alleged violations. The Purported Notice does not. Rather it states, “the violations alleged are statutorily based and do not rely on any specific policy language.” This very statement is a contradiction as the very allegations of the Purported Notice allege coverage disputes, including claiming that Olympus misrepresented pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. Hence, it is clear that the Claimant’s allegations include policy related violations, and as such it must cite the policy language that is relevant to such violations. It does not. Thus, the Purported Notice is invalid for noncompliance with Section 624.155(3)(b)(4), Florida Statutes. This deficiency applies to all allegations in the Purported Notice, supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b) (1), 626.9541(1)(i)(2), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d). Florida courts have weighed in on this requirement, finding that "[i]f the statute contained no specificity requirement, [then] the [insureds'] casual 'reference' to the entire insurance policy undoubtedly would suffice." Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So. 3d 875, 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021 at 879 (citing Fox v. StarrIndem. & Liab. Co., No. 8:16-CV-3254-T-23MAP, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65123, 2017 WL 1541294, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2017). Id. But, the court continued, "the Legislature included 'specific' or a variant not once but twice in the statute." Id. As a result, the insureds' listing of whole sections of the insurance policy "appear [ed] to lack specificity." Id. In Julien, the insured cited numerous statutory violations and listed nearly every provision in the Policy. The Fourth District Court of Appeals agreed with the circuit court that the Civil Remedy Notice failed to specify the statutory and policy provisions at issue. Much the same as in Julien, the Purported Notice fails to state with even the most minor degree of specificity the policy language at issue. v. Fifth Deficiency: The Purported Notice is fatally deficient as it does not supply the necessary information that would allow Olympus to “cure” the alleged violations, as required by Florida law. In Talat, 753 So. 2d 1278, the Florida Supreme Court stated that the alleged statutory violations may be cured by payment of the “contractual amount due the Insured” within 60 days following the acceptance of a valid notice. Not only is the Purported Notice invalid and fatally deficient, but it fails to provide a specific cure amount. Instead, the Purported Notice simply makes immeasurable vague demands for “admitting full coverage for the Insured’s loss” and “tender full benefits owed to the Insured,” but fails to inform Olympus as to what amount the Claimant would accept as a “cure.” IV. Settlement Following the cure period for the instant Civil Remedy Notice, the parties agreed to settlement of the instant matter and counsel sent and subsequently received a general release that included the allegations of this Civil Remedy Notice. Moreover, in this release, Olympus specifically did not admit any liability, bad faith, or the allegations contained within this CRN. The release was signed by the Insureds on May 3, 2025. V. Conclusion As can be seen from the above, there is credible evidence to support the claim was properly adjusted. The claim was thoroughly processed, the Insureds’ property was inspected, and a coverage decision issued. Furthermore, Olympus believes that the Complainant’s position is untenable due to the facts surrounding the claim. Additionally, it should be noted that the Complainant has failed to respond to multiple correspondence requesting additional information requested by Olympus pursuant to the Policy and Florida law. Olympus spent considerable time and resources in the investigation of this matter and believes that its efforts were made in good faith and based on the information available at the time of the claim. In turn, this Civil Remedy Notice unfairly characterizes the facts of the Complainant’s claim and unfairly paints Olympus in a negative light. Further, Olympus asserts this Purported Notice is factually inaccurate, misrepresents the facts of the claim and fails to comply with Florida Statute §624.155. Notwithstanding the deficiencies in, and the invalidity of, the Purported Notice, Olympus denies any wrongdoing. Further, by this response, Olympus neither waves, nor is estopped, from asserting any and all rights it may have in law, or, under the terms of the policy. In fact, Olympus hereby again, expressly, and specifically, reserves all of its rights, without exception or limitation. Nevertheless, as stated above, due to settlement of the parties, this Civil remedy Notice is now moot. Sincerely, Elibet Caballero, Esq. Olympus Insurance Company
ecaballero@wallenkelley.com 03-20-2025 March 20, 2025 Florida Department of Financial Services Consumer Assistance/Civil Remedy Section Larson Bldg., 200 E. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0322 Complainant: Amanda Hendrick Loss Location: 77 Sandalwood Drive, Santa Rosa Beach, FL 32459 Attorney: Grant W. Krapf, Esq., Krapf Legal, P.A. Address: 2790 Sunset Point Road, Clearwater, FL 33759 Insureds: Matthew Hendrick and Amanda Hendrick Claim: 24FLDFV0015363 DOL: 8/3/2024 DOI File: 803805 Filing Date: 1/28/2025 To Whom It May Concern: Please accept this as the response of Olympus Insurance Company (hereafter “Olympus”) to the purported Civil Remedy Notice (hereafter Purported Notice”) filed by the Complainant. This response is specifically in regard to Claim 24FLDFV0015363. This response is specifically in regard to Claim 24FLDFV0015363. The Insureds are Matthew Hendrick and Amanda Hendrick. The property located at 77 Sandalwood Drive, Santa Rosa Beach, FL 32459 (hereafter the “Property”) is insured by Olympus under policy OICF0014854-02 with the effective dates of that policy being June 30, 2024, through June 30, 2025. Statement of Facts This matter arises from a windstorm claim at the Insureds’ Walton County residence. Olympus denies the allegations in this Purported Notice and further asserts that this Purported Notice fails to comply with Florida law and is fatally deficient. I. Claim 24FLDFV0015363 Olympus was provided first notice of this claim on or about August 5, 2024. Olympus immediately assigned claim number 24FLDFV0015363 and a Claim Examiner to the file. Olympus additionally sent the Insured a claim acknowledgement letter, the homeowner’s bill of rights, a sworn proof of loss form. Olympus communicated with its Insureds, reviewed all information received through its investigation, inspected the property multiple times, including conducting an engineer inspection and tendered a coverage determination. Olympus properly and in good faith adjusted the claim and provided the Insureds with a coverage determination pursuant to the terms of the insurance Policy. In short, Olympus complied with all its obligations under the Policy, acted in good faith at all times, and denies the spurious and factually incorrect allegations in this Civil Remedy Notice. II. Nature of the Complainant’s Civil Remedy Complaint The Purported Notice names Olympus and alleges the following statutory violations: (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 towards its insured, (2) a material misrepresentation made to the 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; (3) failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims; (4) misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue; (5) denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information. The Purported Notice is a legal nullity for the reasons and deficiencies discussed below. Florida Statute 624.155 requires a Claimant to provide the Insurer 60 days, written notice of the violation as a condition precedent of commencing a “bad faith” action. Florida Statute 624.155(3) requires the following five (5) pieces of information: 1. The statutory provision, including the specific language of the statute, which the authorized insurer allegedly violated; 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation; 3. The name of any individual involved in the violation; 4. Reference to specific policy language that is relevant to the violation, if any. If the person bringing the civil action is a third party claimant, she or he shall not be required to reference the specific policy language if the authorized insurer has not provided a copy of the policy to the third party claimant pursuant to written request; and 5. A statement that the notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section. The statute also provides that the Civil Remedy Notice shall be “on a form provided by the [Department] and shall state with specificity…such other information as the department may require. The Florida Supreme Court has held that section 624.155, Florida Statutes must be “strictly construed.” Talat Enter., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. And Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1283 (Fla. 2000). Strict construction is appropriate as “this statute is in derogation of the common law.” Id. Accordingly, such an interpretation would mean that statutory bad faith cases cannot proceed unless the claimant has specifically complied with all statutory provisions. Accordingly, such an interpretation would mean that statutory bad faith cases cannot proceed unless the claimant has specifically complied will all statutory requirements. After the promulgation of this statute, the Department created a CRN form: Form DFS-10-363. Form DFS-10-363 lays out 15 requirements: 1. Complainants Name; 2. Complainants Address; 3. Complainants E-mail address; 4. Complainant type (Insured or otherwise); 5. Insured’s Name; 6. Insurance Policy Number; 7. Insurance Claim Number; 8. Attorney’s Name; 9. Attorney’s Address; 10. Attorney’s E-mail Address; 11. Type of Insurer (authorized or otherwise); 12. Name of Insurer; 13. Address of Insurer; 14. Type of Insurance (Commercial Property & Casualty or otherwise); and 15. Reason for Notice. As these requirements are all information required by the Department, according to Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, they each must be stated with specificity. This Purported Notice fails to comply with Florida law and is fatally deficient. III. Civil Remedy Notice Deficiencies i. First Deficiency: The Purported Notice fails to list all “Insureds” under the subject policy, as required by Form DFS-10-363. Specifically, Matthew Hendrick is also a named insured under the subject policy. Consequently, this Purported Notice fails to comply with Florida law and is fatally deficient. This deficiency applies to all allegations in the Purported Notice, supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 626.9541(1)(i)(2), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d). ii. Second Deficiency: Section 624.155(3)(b)(2), Florida Statutes, requires that the Civil Remedy Notice state with specificity the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation. The Purported Notice does not supply facts or circumstances that explain the allegations. Rather, it includes false allegations, incorrect facts, including false information as to the date of loss and timeline of the claims handling, and fails to explain how a thorough investigation and coverage determination, and requesting additional information from the Insureds pursuant to the Policy is a violation of Florida law. Thus, the Purported Notice is invalid for noncompliance with Section 624.155(3)(b)(2), Florida Statutes. This deficiency applies to all allegations in the Purported Notice as Claimant’s Purported Notice also fails to provide any facts as to how Olympus misrepresented facts, what standards the complainant is seeking Olympus implement for the proper investigation of claims, or how was the investigation conducted by Olympus in any way unreasonable. This deficiency applies to all allegations in the Purported Notice, supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 626.9541(1)(i)(2), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d). iii. Third Deficiency: Section 624.155(3)(b)(3), Florida Statutes, requires that the Civil Remedy Notice list the names of any individual involved in the violation. While the Purported Notice lists some specific names, it then states, “and any other individual from, or agent of, Olympus Insurance Company who was involved in the claim.” Thus, the Purported Notice is grossly unspecific and invalid for noncompliance with Section 624.155(3)(b)(3), Florida Statutes. This deficiency applies to all allegations in the Purported Notice, supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 626.9541(1)(i)(2), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d). iv. Fourth Deficiency: Section 624.155(3)(b)(3), Florida Statutes, requires the Civil Remedy Notice to reference specific policy language that is relevant to the violation. A third-party claimant is not required to reference specific policy language, absent receipt of a copy of the Policy. However, the Claimant in this Purported Notice is not a third-party claimant, therefore the Purported Notice must include specific language from the subject policy that is relevant to the alleged violations. The Purported Notice does not. Rather it states, “the violations alleged are statutorily based and do not rely on any specific policy language.” This very statement is a contradiction as the very allegations of the Purported Notice allege coverage disputes, including claiming that Olympus misrepresented pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. Hence, it is clear that the Claimant’s allegations include policy-related violations, and as such it must cite the policy language that is relevant to such violations. It does not. Thus, the Purported Notice is invalid for noncompliance with Section 624.155(3)(b)(4), Florida Statutes. This deficiency applies to all allegations in the Purported Notice, supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 626.9541(1)(i)(2), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d). Florida courts have weighed in on this requirement, finding that "[i]f the statute contained no specificity requirement, [then] the [insureds'] casual 'reference' to the entire insurance policy undoubtedly would suffice." Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So. 3d 875, 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021 at 879 (citing Fox v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., No. 8:16-CV-3254-T-23MAP, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65123, 2017 WL 1541294, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2017). Id. But, the court continued, "the Legislature included 'specific' or a variant not once but twice in the statute." Id. As a result, the insureds' listing of whole sections of the insurance policy "appear[ed] to lack specificity." Id. In Julien, the insured cited numerous statutory violations and listed nearly every provision in the Policy. The Fourth District Court of Appeals agreed with the circuit court that the Civil Remedy Notice failed to specify the statutory and policy provisions at issue. Much the same as in Julien, the Purported Notice fails to state with even the most minor degree of specificity the policy language at issue. v. Fifth Deficiency: The Purported Notice is fatally deficient as it does not supply the necessary information that would allow Olympus to “cure” the alleged violations, as required by Florida law. In Talat, 753 So. 2d 1278, the Florida Supreme Court stated that the alleged statutory violations may be cured by payment of the “contractual amount due the Insured” within 60 days following the acceptance of a valid notice. Not only is the Purported Notice invalid and fatally deficient, but it fails to provide a specific cure amount. Instead, the Purported Notice simply makes immeasurable vague demands for “admitting full coverage for the Insured’s loss” and “tender full benefits owed to the Insured,” but fails to inform Olympus as to what amount the Claimant would accept as a “cure.” IV. Conclusion As can be seen from the above, there is credible evidence to support the claim was properly adjusted. The claim was thoroughly processed, the Insureds’ property was inspected, and a coverage decision issued. Furthermore, Olympus believes that the Complainant’s position is untenable due to the facts surrounding the claim. Olympus spent considerable time and resources in the investigation of this matter and believes that its efforts were made in good-faith and based on the information available at the time of the claim. In turn, this Civil Remedy Notice unfairly characterizes the facts of the Complainant’s claim and unfairly paints Olympus in a negative light. Further, Olympus asserts this Purported Notice is factually inaccurate, misrepresents the facts of the claim and fails to comply with Florida Statute §624.155. Notwithstanding the deficiencies in, and the invalidity of, the Purported Notice, Olympus denies any wrongdoing. Further, by this response, Olympus neither waves, nor is estopped, from asserting any and all rights it may have in law, or, under the terms of the policy. In fact, Olympus hereby again, expressly, and specifically, reserves all of its rights, without exception or limitation. Sincerely, Elibet Caballero, Esq. Olympus Insurance Company
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