Civil Remedy Filing

Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations

Filing Number: 804283

Filing Accepted: 1/30/2025

Print Filing

Complainant

Last/Business Name *

TAYLOR MORRISON OF FLORIDA, INC.

First Name

Street Address *

4900 NORTH SCOTTSDALE ROAD, SUITE 2000

City, State Zip *

SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85251

Email Address *

LKERR@COGBURNLEGAL.COM

Complainant Type: *

Insured

Last/Business Name*		ROOF TILE SPECIALISTS LLC, FL		First Name
Policy # *		AR01RS220241700; AR01RS220241701		Claim #*		CRC002802

Attorney

Attorney is Applicable

Last Name*	KERR First Name * LAUREN Initial D
Street Address*		777 S. HARBOUR ISLAND BLVD., SUITE 245
City, State Zip*		TAMPA , FL 33602
Email Address *		LKERR@COGBURNLEGAL.COM

Violation

Insurer Type *		Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer

Insurer Name
Insurer Name*		CLEAR BLUE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
Insurer Name*
Street Address*
City, State Zip*		,
NAIC Company Code 37745

Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* STEPHEN ROMEO
Type of Insurance * Commercial Property & Casualty

Reason for Notice *

	Claim Delay
	Unfair Trade Practice

* Statutory provision(s) which the insurer allegedly violated.

	624.155(1)(b)(1)		Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests.
	626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a)		Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
	626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c)		Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
	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)(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.

Roof Tile Specialists LLC, FL (“Roof Tile”) purchased at least two commercial general liability (“CGL”) policies from Clear Blue Specialty Insurance Company ("Clear Blue") providing coverage for liability because of property damage resulting from Roof Tile’s work, specifically Policy Number AR01RS220241700 and AR01RS220241701 (policy years 2021-22 and 2022-23) (the "Policies"). The insuring agreements of the Policies state: We will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of … “property damage” to which this insurance applies. We will have the right and duty to defend the insured against any “suit” seeking those damages … The Policies define “property damage” to include: a. Physical injury to tangible property, including all resulting loss of use of that property … or b. Loss of use of tangible property that is not physically injured … For coverage to be afforded, “property damage” must have been caused by an “occurrence,” which is defined under the Policies as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.” Not only do the Policies provide coverage to the named insured, Roof Tile, they also provide coverage to Taylor Morrison of Florida, Inc. (“Taylor Morrison”) as an additional insured. The Policies contain the following endorsement in relevant part: ADDITIONAL INSURED – OWNERS, LESSES OR CONTRACTORS – SCHEDULED PERSON OR ORGANIZATION A. Section II – Who Is An Insured is amended to include as an additional insured the person(s) or organization(s) shown in the Schedule, but only with respect to liability for … “property damage” … caused, in whole or in part, by [Roof Tile’s] acts or omissions… SCHEDULE Name Of Additional Insured Person(s) Or Organization(s) Blanket [as required by virtue of written contract] [where required by written contract signed by both parties and the contract is executed prior to any loss] The Policies also contain a nearly identical endorsement extending the additional insured coverage to Roof Tile’s completed operations. The subcontract between Roof Tile and Taylor Morrison is fully executed by both parties prior to the start of Roof Tile’s work at the subject project. The subcontract required that Roof Tile name “Taylor Morrison Communities, Inc. and its affiliates of all tiers” as an additional insured on its policies of insurance. Taylor Morrison of Florida, Inc. is one such affiliate.

* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

This civil remedy notice is being filed because Clear Blue Specialty Insurance Company ("Clear Blue") has failed to address Taylor Morrison of Florida, Inc.’s (“Taylor Morrison”) tender of defense in good faith. The Clear Blue policies implicated are AR01RS220241700 and AR01RS220241701 (policy years 2021-22 and 2022-23) (the "Policies"). Taylor Morrison has been named as a defendant in an arbitration action styled as Marc Greene and Amy Greene v. Taylor Morrison of Florida, Inc. (the “Lawsuit”). The Lawsuit alleges property damage resulting from work performed at the Plaintiffs’ home (the “Project”), including the roofing work performed by Taylor Morrison’s subcontractor, Roof Tile Specialists LLC, FL (“Roof Tile”). During original construction, Roof Tile performed work at the Project pursuant to the terms and conditions of its subcontract with Taylor Morrison. Included in the subcontract between Taylor Morrison and Roof Tile was a requirement that Roof Tile would secure commercial general liability ("CGL") insurance and name Taylor Morrison as an Additional Insured. Roof Tile purchased at least two CGL policies, the Policies, from Clear Blue, which provide coverage for liability because of property damage resulting from Roof Tile’s work. This coverage extends to both the named insured, Roof Tile, and the additional insured, Taylor Morrison. As described supra, the Policies extend coverage to additional insureds where required by contract. Because the written subcontract between Taylor Morrison and Roof Tile required Roof Tile to name Taylor Morrison as an additional insured on its policies of insurance, Taylor Morrison is an additional insured under the Policies. Taylor Morrison tendered its defense to Clear Blue on March 28, 2023. Clear Blue requested additional information in April 2023, which counsel for Taylor Morrison provided. Since that time (nearing two years ago), and despite numerous requests for a coverage decision, Clear Blue has failed to respond to Taylor Morrison’s tender of defense, nor has Clear Blue provided Taylor Morrison with a defense in the Lawsuit. Clear Blue’s refusal to provide a defense to Taylor Morrison is knowingly wrongful because the Lawsuit, as pled, implicates coverage under the Policies and does not clearly implicate any exclusions under the Policies. "Under Florida law, an insurer's duty to defend its insured against legal action is quite broad, and 'is determined by comparing the allegations contained within the four corners of the underlying complaint with the language of the policy.'" Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Southern- Owners Ins. Co., 314 F. Supp. 3d 1284, 1299 (M.D. Fla. 2018) (Howard, J.) citing Addison Ins. Co. v. 4000 Island Blvd. Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 263 F. Supp. 3d 1266, 1269 (S.D. Fla. 2016) (quoting Jones v. Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n Inc., 908 So. 2d 435, 443 (Fla. 2005)). That is, an insurer's duty to defend is determined solely by the allegations in the underlying complaint. Zurich, 314 F. Supp. 3d at 1299 citing Category 5 Mgmt. Grp., LLC v. Companion Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 76 So. 3d 20, 23 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. JDC (Am.) Corp., 52 F. 3d 1575, 1580 (11th Cir. 1995). "The duty arises when the relevant pleadings allege facts that 'fairly and potentially bring the suit within policy coverage.'" Id. citing Lawyers Title Ins. Corp., 52 F. 3d at 1580 (quoting Lime Tree Vill. Cmty. Club Ass'n, Inc. v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., 980 F. 2d 1402, 1405 (11th Cir. 1993)). The actual facts of the situation are not relevant, such that "the insurer must defend even if facts alleged are actually untrue or legal theories unsound." Id. As a result, "an insurer's duty to defend is distinct from, and broader than, the duty to indemnify," Id. citing Sinni v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 676 F. Supp. 2d 1319, 1323 (M.D. Fla. 2009), which "must be determined by analyzing the policy coverage in light of the facts in the underlying case," J.B.D. Constr., Inc. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 571 F. App'x 918, 927 (11th Cir. 2014) (emphasis added). In addition, where an injured party "alleges facts partially within and partially outside the coverage of the policy, the insurer is obligated to defend the entire suit." Category 5 Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 76 So. 3d at 23. The only way an insurer can avoid its duty to defend based on an exclusion is by showing that the allegations in the underlying complaint fall solely and entirely within that exclusion. See Lime Tree Vill. Cmty. Club Ass’n, Inc. v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., 980 F.2d 1402, 1405-07 (11th Cir. 1993); see also Northland Cas. Co. v. HBE Corp., 160 F. Supp. 2d 1348, 1359 (M.D. Fla. 2011). “If the allegations of the complaint leave any doubt regarding the duty to defend, the question must be resolved in favor of the insured requiring the insurer to defend.” Baron Oil Co. v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 470 So. 2d 810, 814 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); see also Higgins v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 894 So. 2d 5, 10 (Fla. 2004) (approving standard articulated in Baron Oil); Voeller Constr., Inc. v. Southern-Owners Ins. Co., No. 8:13-cv-3169, 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis 61862 at *4 (M.D. Fla. May 5, 2014). Clear Blue’s failure to defend Taylor Morrison has prejudiced and damaged Taylor Morrison. Due to Clear Blue’s unreasonable claims handling practices, Taylor Morrison has been and will be forced to incur significant defense costs in the Lawsuit, for which Clear Blue is responsible. Importantly, the defense costs will significantly escalate as the Lawsuit approaches the final arbitration hearing in April 2025. The Lawsuit includes allegations of losses covered under the Policies. Under Florida law, Clear Blue’s duty to defend Taylor Morrison was triggered by the Plaintiffs’ allegations, whether they are proven to be true or not. Clear Blue appears to be employing a misguided strategy of simply ignoring the Lawsuit and Taylor Morrison’s tender of defense in an effort to avoid paying the defense costs to which Taylor Morrison is entitled. The attorneys' fees and costs that Taylor Morrison has incurred have unjustly burdened Taylor Morrison. Moreover, by refusing to defend Taylor Morrison, Clear Blue has greatly exposed its named insured, Roof Tile, to a much larger claim for Taylor Morrison’s defense costs in this matter pursuant to the contractual indemnification provisions in the subcontract. Clear Blue must exercise its duty of good faith to Taylor Morrison and must employ “the same degree of care and diligence as a person of ordinary care and prudence should exercise in the management of his own business.” Farinas v. Florida Farm Bureau Gen. Ins. Co., 850 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (internal citations omitted). Under Farinas, Clear Blue is obligated to (1) fully investigate all claims at hand to determine how to best limit its insured’s liability; (2) seek to settle as many claims as possible within the policy limits; (3) minimize the magnitude of possible excess judgments against its insureds by reasoned claim settlement; and (4) keep the insureds informed of the claim resolution process. Clear Blue’s obligations extend to all the insureds under the Policies and are not limited to the named insured. Thus, Clear Blue’s obligations extend to additional insureds, like Taylor Morrison. To date, Taylor Morrison is unaware of Clear Blue’s investigation, if any, of the claims against Taylor Morrison. Likewise, Clear Blue has never advised Taylor Morrison how, or if, it intends to minimize a possible excess judgment against Taylor Morrison. Given Clear Blue’s and the other facts outlined above, Clear Blue has failed or attempted to meet the standard for good faith in this matter. Taylor Morrison will be filing suit against Clear Blue but is also filing this notice in an effort to provide Clear Blue with a last opportunity to deal with Taylor Morrison in good faith as well as to perfect its right to pursue the remedies provided under Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. Clear Blue can cure by acknowledging its duty to defend Taylor Morrison, reimbursing Taylor Morrison for its reasonable defense costs, and working together with Taylor Morrison to resolve this claim, including without limitation participating at the mediation scheduled for February 5, 2025.

Comments

User Id		Date Added		Comment
jorge.maza@kennedyslaw.com		03-21-2025		Clear Blue Specialty Insurance Company (“CBSIC”) denies all allegations set forth in Civil Remedy Notice No. 804283 (the “CRN”). Nevertheless, CBSIC and Taylor Morrison of Florida, Inc. have reached an amicable resolution in principle of all issues raised in the CRN.

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