Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     804503
Filing Accepted:  1/31/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
DUBOIS   First Name   LEIGH
Street Address * 3516 17TH AVE. W
City, State Zip * BRADENTON, FL 34205
Email Address * LEIGHDUBOIS7@GMAIL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   DUBOIS   First Name   LEIGH
Policy # * 1501-2102-6918 Claim #* FL24-0128838-K524
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* OLADIPO First Name * ABIDEMI Initial A.
Street Address* 15257 AMBERLY DRIVE
City, State Zip* TAMPA , FLORIDA 33647
Email Address * AOLADIPO@MSO.LAW
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10861
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, LAWRENCE WOLFE, ALONG WITH ALL ADJUSTERS, SUPERVISORS, MANAGERS, AND INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH OR RETAINED BY THE INSURER IN THE CLAIM.
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
Claim Delay
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Unfair Trade Practice
* Statutory provision(s) which the insurer allegedly violated.
 
624.155(1)(b)(1) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests.
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)(g) Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h) Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

HOMEOWNERS 3 – SPECIAL FORM AGREEMENT We will provide the insurance described in this policy in return for the premium and compliance with all applicable provisions of this policy. … SECTION I – PROPERTY COVERAGES A. Coverage A – Dwelling 1. We cover: a. The dwelling on the "residence premises" shown in the Declarations, including structures attached to the dwelling; and b. Materials and supplies located on or next to the "residence premises" used to construct, alter or repair the dwelling or other structures on the "residence premises". B. Coverage B – Other Structures 1. We cover other structures on the "residence premises" set apart from the dwelling by clear space. This includes structures connected to the dwelling by only a fence, utility line, or similar connection. … D. Coverage C – Personal Property 1. Covered Property We cover personal property owned or used by an "insured" while it is anywhere in the world. After a loss and at your request, we will cover personal property owned by: a. Others while the property is on the part of the "residence premises" occupied by an "insured"; or b. A guest or a "residence employee", while the property is in any residence occupied by an "insured". D. Coverage D – Loss Of Use The limit of liability for Coverage D is the total limit for the coverages in 1. Additional Living Expense, 2. Fair Rental Value and 3. Civil Authority Prohibits Use below.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

On May 14, 2024, Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“UPCIC”) issued policy number 1501-2102-6918 (the “Policy”) to Leigh DuBois (“Insured”) for her home located at 3516 17th Ave. W, Bradenton, Florida 34205 (“Insured Property”) for the period of May 14, 2024 to May 14, 2025. The Policy provides Coverage A – Dwelling limits of $354,196.00; Coverage B – Other Structure limits of $35,423.00; Coverage C – Personal Property limits of $177,098.00; and Coverage D - Loss of Use limits of $70,840.00. The Policy provides coverage for direct damage to the Insured Property as a result of hurricanes. On October 9, 2024, Hurricane Milton made landfall in Florida, causing extensive devastation to numerous communities, including Bradenton. Hurricane Milton’s powerful wind gusts and torrential rainfall inflicted direct and substantial damage upon the Insured Property, particularly to its roof, resulting in significant interior water damage that exacerbated the overall damage. The damage to the roof was so severe that, upon Hurricane Milton’s passing, the Insured immediately observed shingles scattered across her yard. Additionally, the high winds caused the complete detachment of the pool enclosure and continued to impact the Insured Property for several hours. The perimeter fence of the Insured Property was also entirely destroyed. Upon discovering the damage, on October 19, 2024, the Insured promptly reported the loss to UPCIC and provided its representatives with unfettered access to the Insured Property for inspection and assessment. UPCIC assigned claim number FL24-0128838-K524 and initiated its investigation of the claim. As part of this process, UPCIC designated field adjuster Lawrence Wolfe to conduct an inspection of the Insured Property, which took place on October 29, 2024. Regrettably, Mr. Wolfe’s inspection was incomplete, as he either failed to assess or deliberately overlooked certain areas of the Insured Property that were damaged by Hurricane Milton. As a direct consequence of this inadequate inspection, Mr. Wolfe produced an estimate dated November 16, 2024, in which he assessed the damages at a replacement cost value of $29,881.34—an amount grossly insufficient to restore the Insured Property to its pre-loss condition. Based on this flawed assessment, UPCIC issued only a partial payment, deducting the $7,083.92 hurricane deductible and withholding $8,135.15 for recoverable depreciation, resulting in a net disbursement of $13,227.21. Regrettably, UPCIC has demonstrated a recurrent business practice of engaging adjusters, including Mr. Wolfe, who systematically underestimate damages to insured properties, disregard evident losses, or lack the requisite qualifications to properly assess and adjust claims. This pattern of conduct is not limited to the instant claim but is also prevalent in numerous other hurricane-related claims filed against UPCIC throughout the state of Florida. Such practices not only reflect UPCIC’s failure to adopt and implement appropriate standards for the proper investigation of claims, in direct violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), Florida Statutes but also constitute a misrepresentation of pertinent facts and policy provisions related to coverage, in violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), Florida Statutes. Furthermore, the Insured experienced unprofessional and improper conduct from Mr. Wolfe following UPCIC’s issuance of its coverage determination letter. Specifically, Mr. Wolfe misled the Insured and disregarded her requests for clarification regarding the additional materials required to complete the claim. Instead of providing the necessary guidance, Mr. Wolfe responded with dismissive and unprofessional remarks, thereby violating Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), Florida Statutes, which mandates that insurers acknowledge and act promptly upon communications regarding claims. Additionally, Mr. Wolfe’s failure to properly inform the Insured of the specific information necessary to process the claim constitutes a violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g), Florida Statutes, which imposes a duty on insurers and their representatives to notify insureds of any additional information required for claim processing. The Insured has fully complied with all Duties After Loss provisions set forth in the Policy, including the timely reporting of the claim, granting UPCIC and its representatives unfettered access to the Insured Property, and furnishing all relevant documentation related to the claim. In fact, due to UPCIC’s deficient claims investigation and improper adjustment, the Insured was compelled to adjust her own claim. To substantiate the extent of the loss, the Insured provided an itemized estimate for roof repairs totaling $16,839.07, prepared by EBM Atlantic Group, LLC. Additionally, the Insured submitted two separate estimates for the replacement of the pool enclosure: one from Florida Pool Experts, dated October 30, 2024, in the amount of $19,300.00, and another from Francisco Ivo Filho GC, LLC, in the amount of $27,852.00. Furthermore, to establish that the damages sustained were not pre-existing and did not precede Hurricane Milton, the Insured submitted a home inspection report prepared by Owens Construction and Inspection Services, LLC, dated April 7, 2021, which was conducted at the time of the Insured’s purchase of the property. This report unequivocally confirms that the damaged components of the Insured Property were in good and serviceable condition prior to Hurricane Milton. Despite the Insured’s submission of this comprehensive documentation, UPCIC deliberately disregarded it, further demonstrating its failure to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications related to the claim, in violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), Florida Statutes. Moreover, UPCIC failed to provide the Insured with a reasonable written explanation of the basis for its denial of the claim or its compromise settlement offer, in violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), Florida Statutes. As a result of UPCIC’s inadequate handling of the claim, the Insured was compelled to retain legal representation to assist in presenting her claim. Through her legal counsel, the Insured engaged LSC Construction Consultants, LLC (“LSC”) to conduct an independent inspection of the Insured Property and prepare a general contractor estimate reflecting the actual cost required to restore the property to its pre-loss condition, considering current market prices for materials, labor, and permits in the area. LSC conducted its inspection on January 16, 2025, and subsequently produced a detailed, itemized estimate of damages totaling $ 70,900.88, which was submitted to UPCIC to facilitate the proper adjustment of the claim. Regrettably, UPCIC has willfully ignored the Insured’s repeated efforts and requests for assistance, continuing to withhold payment for the covered loss. As a direct consequence of UPCIC’s unjustified refusal to issue the necessary payment, the Insured remains unable to restore the Insured Property to its pre-loss condition. In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. UPCIC has breached the public’s trust by its adjustment of the Insured’s claim of loss. UPCIC has failed to create and implement adequate guidelines for the proper investigation and evaluation of claims, claims handling, and for training and supervision of employees resulting in statutory violations as set forth above. UPCIC has failed and/or refused to thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigate and evaluate the Insured’s claim for damages. UPCIC has failed to promptly settle the Insured’s claim when the obligation to settle the insurance claim had become reasonably clear. To date, notwithstanding the Insured’s pleas otherwise, UPCIC has continued to refuse to acknowledge its obligation to conduct a proper investigation. Moreover, UPCIC has not attempted in good faith to settle the Insured’s claim 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 their interests. UPCIC has done everything possible to delay and/or deny the claim. Furthermore, UPCIC is required to properly investigate and adjust claims and cannot place that burden upon the insureds. This was made clear by the appellate court and the Florida Supreme Court in Allstate Indemnity Co. v. Ruiz, 899 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 2005)(“The Legislature has clearly chosen to impose on the insurance companies a duty to use good faith and fair dealing in processing and litigating the claims of their insureds…”). UPCIC was timely put on notice of the Insured’s loss and claim for damages. The Insured has complied with all of UPCIC’s requests to date and the carrier has still failed to treat this claim with good-faith. This intentional delay with the claim has led to direct prejudice of the Insured, who continues to be held hostage unless/until UPCIC engages in good faith claims handling. To date, UPCIC has still refused to fully pay the amount owed under the Policy. To make matters worse, the Insured have incurred incredible costs and efforts to adjust their own loss, with detailed and substantiated damages presented to UPCIC in the form of a repair estimate evidencing $70,900.88 in Replacement Cost Valuation. UPCIC’s stubborn and/or negligent refusal to fully indemnify the Insured for the covered damages has resulted in a confluence of consequential damages including, but not limited to, excess damages stemming from UPCIC’s maladroit adjustment of the claim, the unaffordability of the Insured Property given the loss of utility and the indefinite delay to address the ongoing dispute, additional costs and expenses to adjust its own loss that include retaining a public adjuster and an attorney, among many other otherwise unnecessary consequences but for the negligence and nefarious business practices of UPCIC. It is clear that UPCIC is not treating the Insured with good faith claims conduct; failing to pay a claim clearly owed; not adjusting the claim and evaluating the loss properly, promptly and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to the Insured; and ignoring the Insured’s pleas for assistance; failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims by its adjusters and placing UPCIC’s interests before the Insured’s interests; refusing to pay the full amount owed to the Insured despite the fact that UPCIC has been on notice of the damages and looking for ways to delay and/or deny full recovery to the Insured, when a reasonable carrier in a similar position would have tendered a full payment in accordance with both the policy language and statutory requirements. UPCIC’s actions are in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g), and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h), Florida Statutes. All of the aforementioned are part of what appears to be an ongoing pattern and practice of behavior by UPCIC that demonstrates a wanton and reckless disregard for insureds’ rights and a pattern and practice of bad faith claims practices to its insureds across the state of Florida. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, UPCIC must: (1) Create and implement adequate guidelines for the proper investigation and evaluation of these type of claims and for the training and supervision of employees, which will avoid future statutory violations as set forth above, and prevent this from occurring in the future; (2) UPCIC must create and implement adequate guidelines for the proper investigation and evaluation of these type of claims and for the training and supervision of employees with regard to these type of claims to ensure that the claims handling procedure with regard to these types of losses are adequate to prevent other insureds from being treated unfairly and wrongfully; (3) UPCIC must pay the Insured $70,900.88 for all of the damages sustained as a result of the loss, less the applicable deductible, limitations, plus all contractual damages owed, attorney’s fees, costs and interest, under Sections 57.041 and 627.70131(5)(a) Florida Statutes; and (4) UPCIC must act fairly and honestly towards its Insured and with due regard for their interests in attempting to settle its Insured’s claim.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
oc1102@universalproperty.com 03-21-2025 March 21, 2025 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING Florida Department of Financial Services Bureau of Consumer Assistance Civil Remedy Section 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0322 Re: DFS File No.: 804503 Filing Date: 1/31/2025 Complainant(s): Leigh Dubois Insured(s): Leigh Dubois Policy No.: 1501-2102-6918 Claim No.: FL24-0128838-K524 Dear Sir/Madam: Please allow this to serve as Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company’s (“Universal”) formal response to the above-referenced Civil Remedy Notice (“Notice”) filed by attorney, Abidemi A. Oladipo, on behalf of Complainant, Leigh Dubois (also referenced as the “Insured.”) The Notice alleges violations of Sections 624.155 and 626.9541, Florida Statutes. Universal denies the allegations contained in the Notice. Additionally, Universal denies that it violated these or any statutes, Florida law or policy provisions regarding the claim adjustment of this matter. With that said, Universal asserts that the Notice fails to comply with the specific notice and information requirements as set forth in Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation document provisions, Section 624.155, Florida Statutes and Florida law. The Notice is deficient as a matter of law as it fails to comply with Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. See 316, Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Ins. Co., 625 F. Supp. 2d 1187 (N.D. Fla. 2008); Rousso v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., 2010 WL 7367059, (S. D. Fla. 2010); Heritage Corp. of South Fla. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, P.A., 580 F. Supp. 2d 1294 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co., 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). Pursuant to Section 624.155(3)(b), Florida Statutes, the Notice “shall state with specificity” the following information: 1. The statutory provision, including the specific language, 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...; 5. a statement that the Notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section. Moreover, the Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) created form DFS-10-363, which lays out 15 requirements that the Complainant(s) must respond to with specificity. The Florida Supreme Court holds that Section 624.155, Florida Statutes “must be strictly construed.” Talat Enterprises, 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. When interpreting a statute in derogation of the common law, “[a] court will presume that such a statute was not intended to alter the common law other than as clearly and plainly specified in the statute.” Time Ins. Co., Inc. v. Burger, 712 So. 2d 389, 393 (Fla. 1998). Such an interpretation would mean that statutory bad faith cases cannot proceed unless the Complainant(s) has specifically complied with all statutory requirements. Pin-Pon Corp. v. Landmark American Ins. Co., 500 F. Supp. 3d 1336 (S.D. Fla. 2020); Julien v. United Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 311 So.3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). To begin, the Notice fails to meet the requirements of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes on several grounds. First, the Notice fails to satisfy the requirement to identify the person or persons representing the insurer most responsible for or knowledgeable of the facts giving rise to the allegations. In order to comply with the requirements of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, the Complainant must name the individual(s) involved with specificity as it relates to the purported violation to allow Universal to properly investigate the allegations. The Notice lacks the requisite specificity as required by Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. Here, the Complainant does not identify the person or persons at Universal with the most knowledge of the facts regarding any alleged violation(s), instead the Notice states, “UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, LAWRENCE WOLFE, ALONG WITH ALL ADJUSTERS, SUPERVISORS, MANAGERS, AND INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH OR RETAINED BY THE INSURER IN THE CLAIM.” The Notice fails to include any specificity as to how Lawrence Wolfe is knowledgeable of the facts giving rise to any purported allegation(s) and/or what, if anything, Mr. Wolfe did or failed to do as it relates to the claim at issue. The statement significantly prejudices Universal, as Universal has not been properly notified by the Complainant of the individuals that purportedly committed statutory violations or the specific statutory violations any individual purportedly committed. Further, the statement clearly defeats the requirement in the DFS form to provide specificity in order to put the carrier on notice and provide an opportunity to investigate any allegation with a specific individual. Specific identification of a person or persons with the most knowledge within Universal is of particular importance because, the Complainant alleges that Universal “[m]issrepresent[ed] pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue.” The Notice, however, fails to include the requisite specificity as to whom made any misrepresentations or when any of these misrepresentations occurred. Accordingly, the Notice is insufficient as a matter of law. Second, the Notice fails to satisfy Section 624.155(3)(b)(4), Florida Statutes, in that it fails to reference specific policy language relevant to any alleged violation. Instead of identifying specific policy language the Complainant believes is relevant to any alleged violation, the Complainant refers generally to a policy section title and provisions but fails to specify how the listed section and provisions apply to the alleged violations. Complainant’s broad reference to policy provisions provides no guidance or explanation, such that Universal is left to wonder what policy provisions Complainant believes were allegedly violated or breached and why. It is therefore unclear as to what, if any, policy language pertains to any purported allegation or how it relates to the allegations. The Complainant’s failure to reference relevant policy language does not satisfy the specificity required by Section 624.155(3)(b)(4), Florida Statute. As such, the Notice is deficient as a matter of law. See generally Julien v. United Property & Casualty Ins. Co. 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). Third, with respect to the requirement to set forth with specificity the “facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation,” the Notice fails to allege any specific conduct on the part of Universal that would violate any policy provision or statute. The Complainant lists “Claim Delay, Claim Denial, Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer, and Unfair Trade Practice” as the reason for bringing the Notice. The Complainant’s allegations have no factual support specified in the Notice. Additionally, the Notice asserts general allegations consisting largely upon conclusory and boilerplate statements rather than providing specific facts to support its conclusory allegations regarding any alleged misconduct or statutory violations. For example, the Notice states, UPCIC has not attempted in good faith to settle the Insured’s claim 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 their interests. UPCIC has done everything possible to delay and/or deny the claim. Furthermore, UPCIC is required to properly investigate and adjust claims and cannot place that burden upon the insureds. However, the Complainant fails to specify any facts to support these conclusory statements. Moreover, at no time has Universal place the burden of investigating and adjusting the claim upon the Insured. Furthermore, the Notice states, It is clear that UPCIC is not treating the Insured with good faith claims conduct; failing to pay a claim clearly owed; not adjusting the claim and evaluating the loss properly, promptly and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to the Insured; and ignoring the Insured’s pleas for assistance; failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims by its adjusters and placing UPCIC’s interests before the Insured’s interests; refusing to pay the full amount owed to the Insured despite the fact that UPCIC has been on notice of the damages and looking for ways to delay and/or deny full recovery to the Insured, when a reasonable carrier in a similar position would have tendered a full payment in accordance with both the policy language and statutory requirements. UPCIC’s actions are in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g), and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h), Florida Statutes. However, the Notice sets forth no specific facts to support this recitation of the statute. Moreover, the Notice alleges that Universal violated Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), Florida Statutes, by “[m]isrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to the coverages at issue.” However, the Notice does not set forth any facts regarding any misrepresentations made by Universal and does not identify the person or persons who made such misrepresentations and/or when any such misrepresentations were made. Additionally, the Notice alleges, “[a]ll of the aforementioned are part of what appears to be an ongoing pattern and practice of behavior by UPCIC that demonstrates a wanton and reckless disregard for insureds’ rights and a pattern and practice of bad faith claims practices to its insureds across the state of Florida.” However, the Complainant fails to specify any facts to support this conclusory statement. The Notice does not state any facts to support any of the allegations contained therein. Therefore, the statement of facts falls short of the specificity required by Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. As a result, the Complainant failed to comply with the requirements provided in Section 624.155(3)(b)(2), Florida Statutes. Lastly, the Notice does not provide a proper means whereby Universal can “cure” the alleged defects. The purpose of a Civil Remedy Notice is to provide the insurer an opportunity to “cure” the alleged wrongdoing. Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 753 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). The Florida Supreme Court holds that the scope of what can be “cured” in responding to a Civil Remedy Notice, is limited to contractual amounts due to the insured. See Talat, 753 So. 2d at 1281. The Complainants demand “cures” which are not available under the policy of insurance or the Civil Remedy Statute. Additionally, the Complainant demands extra-contractual damages, including but not limited to requiring Universal to “pay the Insured… attorney’s fees, costs and interest…” The Notice is deficient in that it does not provide Universal with an opportunity to “cure” the alleged violations without paying extra-contractual damages. Universal is only obligated to pay contractual amounts owed to cure a civil remedy. See id. at 1278. In summary, as outlined above, the Complainant fails to respond to each of the fields set forth on the DFS Form with the requisite specificity including, but not limited to, the failure to satisfy the requirement to identify the person or persons representing the insurer most responsible for or knowledgeable of the facts giving rise to the allegations, the failure to reference any specific policy language relevant to any alleged violation, the failure to allege any specific conduct on the part of Universal that would violate any policy provision or statutes, and the failure to provide a proper means to cure. Therefore, the Notice is legally deficient and fails to satisfy the condition precedent to filing a bad faith action. Pin-Pon Corp. v. Landmark American Ins. Co., 500 F. Supp. 3d 1336 (S.D. Fla. 2020); Julien v. United Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 311 So.3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). For the aforementioned reasons, the Notice is deficient as a matter of law. Nonetheless, and without waiving the above-referenced deficiencies, the following shall provide you with the facts and circumstances regarding this claim, which shall demonstrate that Universal has not violated any Policy terms or statutory provisions. On October 11, 2024, Universal received notice from the Insured the insured location had damage which occurred on October 9, 2024. Universal inspected the property and documented any visible damage. Thereafter, Universal issued an undisputed payment to the Insured in the full amount of its estimate, less recoverable depreciation and the applicable deductible, pursuant to the terms of the Policy. Under the terms of the Policy, Universal will initially pay at least the actual cash value of the insured loss, less any applicable deductible. It will then pay any remaining amounts necessary to perform such repairs as work is performed and expenses are incurred. To date, Universal has not received any documentation from the Insured showing the amount necessary to perform such repairs or that expenses have been incurred in excess of the payment issued by Universal to the Insured. Universal denies the allegations asserted in the Notice. An insurer is not required to pay whatever amount an insured demands. As outlined above, the alleged statutory violations set forth in the Notice are devoid of factual support and are without merit. We trust that the foregoing is sufficient to advise you of Universal’s position with regard to this matter and fully responds to the Notice file by the Complainant. Sincerely, /s/ Ozzy Cudila Ozzy Cudila, Esq. Associate General Counsel
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