Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     804864
Filing Accepted:  2/3/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
BLANCHET   First Name   NATACHA
Street Address * 12172 89TH PLACE N
City, State Zip * WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33412
Email Address * NATACHB@YAHOO.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   BLANCHET   First Name   NATACHA
Policy # * 1501-2302-4215 Claim #* FL24-0137208-K524
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* BABB First Name * ETHAN Initial
Street Address* 6013 FARCENDA PLACE, SUITE 101
City, State Zip* MELBOURNE , FLORIDA 32940
Email Address * EBABB@LLR.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):* ANY INDIVIDUALS ON BEHALF OF WHO UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY WAS INVOLVED IN THE HANDLING AND ADJUSTMENT OF THE CLAIM WHO IS UNKNOWN TO THE CLAIMANT.
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
Unfair Trade Practice
Other : Not treating the policy holder with good faith claims conduct
Other : Failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims
Other : Not training, supervising, or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made
* 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)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g) Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim.
626.9541(1)(i)(4) Failing to pay undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed under first-party property insurance policies within 60 days after an insurer receives notice of a residential property insurance claim, determines the amounts of partial or full benefits, and agrees to coverage, unless payment of the undisputed benefits is prevented by factors beyond the control of the insurer as defined in s. 627.70131(5).
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

There are no provisions in dispute, the policy provides coverage for damage to dwelling and other structures for hurricane loss.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

This complaint is made on behalf of Natacha Blanchet ("Insured"). In consideration for the premium paid to it by the Insured, Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“Insurance Company”) issued Insurance Policy number 1501-2302-4215. On or around October 10, 2024, while the Policy was in full force and effect, the Insured suffered a loss at the insured property located at 12172 89th Place N, West Palm Beach, FL 33412 ("the Property"). The loss caused direct physical damage to the Property. The loss was sudden and accidental, and therefore, a covered peril under the policy. On or about October 17, 2024, the Insured notified the Insurer of the loss due to hurricane damage during the Date of Loss, the Insurer assigned claim number FL24-0137208-K524 (“Claim”) to the Insured's loss. The Insured elected to retain representation by Ask An Adjuster (Public Adjuster) to streamline the claim process. The Public Adjuster conducted a thorough investigation, including and preparing a repair estimate totaling $102,899.77. The estimate was provided to the Insurance Company. Since the loss was reported on or about October 21, 2024, the Insured has not received any correspondence from the Insurance Company. Therefore, violating Florida Statutes 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g), failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim. As of today, February 3, 2025, the Insurance Company has failed to issue a coverage determination, violation Florida Statute 626.9541(1)(i)(4), failing to pay undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed under first-party property insurance policies within 60 days after an insurer receives notice of a residential property insurance claim, determines the amounts of partial or full benefits, and agrees to coverage, unless payment of the undisputed benefits is prevented by factors beyond the control of the insurer as defined in section 627.70131(5) because it has been 105 days since the Insurance Company was notified. The Insurance Company’s actions amount to, but are not limited to, the following in handling the Insured’s claim: (1) Not treating the policyholder with good faith claims conduct; (2) Not adjusting claims and evaluating losses properly, promptly and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to the Insured; (3) Not training, supervising or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made, but rather placing the company’s interests before the policyholder’s interests; (4) Conducting inadequate investigations; (5) Failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims; and (6) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims. The Insured submitted a claim to the Insurance Company for damage sustained to the above referenced property as a result of the damage. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this civil remedy notice, the Insurance Company must: (1) Admit full coverage for the Insured’s loss; (2) tender full benefits owed to the Insured under the insurance contract; and (3) pay all attorney’s fees, costs, and interest. A copy of this form submitted to the FDFS has been uploaded to the Insurance Company’s claims portal providing it notice of the filing of the civil remedy notice. Please email any response to this civil remedy notice to insurancegroup@llr.law. This Civil Remedy Notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
swood@babblaw.com 07-17-2025 The issues detailed herein have been amicably resolved between the parties, therefore, the Insureds withdraw this CRN.
oc1102@universalproperty.com 03-24-2025 March 24, 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.: 804864 Filing Date: 2/3/2025 Complainant(s): Natacha Blanchet Insured(s): Natacha Blanchet Policy No.: 1501-2302-4215 Claim No.: FL24-0137208-K524 Dear Sir/Madam: Please allow this to serve as Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company’s (“Universal”) formal response to the above-referenced Civil Remedy Notice (“Notice”) filed by attorney, Ethan Babb, on behalf of Complainant, Natacha Blanchet (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 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 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), but attempts a “catch-all” by stating “ANY INDIVIDUALS ON BEHALF OF WHO UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY WAS INVOLVED IN THE HANDLING AND ADJUSTMENT OF THE CLAIM WHO IS UNKNOWN TO THE CLAIMANT,” which significantly prejudices Universal, as Universal has not been properly notified by Complainant of the individual(s) that purportedly committed statutory violations or the specific statutory violations any individual purportedly committed. The Complainant has effectively provided no one specifically with the most knowledge of the facts giving rise to any of the purported allegations in the Notice on behalf of Universal. Therefore, the Notice does not have the requisite specificity as to whom the Complainant is asserting has knowledge as to any allegation of bad faith claims handling to put Universal on Notice of what needs to be cured. Accordingly, the Complainant’s 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 any specific policy language relevant to any alleged violation. The Notice states: “There are no provisions in dispute, the policy provides coverage for damage to dwelling and other structures for hurricane loss.” Thus, the Complainant admits that Universal in fact did not violate any specific policy language but fails to provide any specificity as to how any statutes were violated. 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 Notice contains general allegations consisting largely of conclusory and inaccurate statements, rather than specific allegations of facts regarding any alleged misconduct or statutory violations. For example, the Notice states: The Insurance Company’s actions amount to, but are not limited to, the following in handling the Insured’s claim: (1) Not treating the policyholder with good faith claims conduct; (2) Not adjusting claims and evaluating losses properly, promptly and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to the Insured; (3) Not training, supervising or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made, but rather placing the company’s interests before the policyholder’s interests; (4) Conducting inadequate investigations; (5) Failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims; and (6) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims. The Insured submitted a claim to the Insurance Company for damage sustained to the above referenced property as a result of the damage. The vague and generic conclusory assertions above are unsupported by specific facts and do not provide a sufficient explanation as to how Universal allegedly violated any policy provision or statute. It is evident that the statement of facts falls short of the specificity required by Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. As a result, the Complainant fails 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, without paying benefits which are not due and owing to the Insured. 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). However, Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, does not impose on an insurer the obligation to pay whatever an insured demands. Talat, 753 So. 2d at 1282. To the contrary, 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. Complainant demands extra-contractual damages, including but not limited to, requiring Universal to “pay all attorney’s fees, costs, and interest.” The Notice fails to provide Universal 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. As such, the Notice is deficient. 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 specific policy language relevant to the alleged violation, the failure to allege any specific conduct on the part of Universal that would violate any policy provision or statute, and the failure to provide a proper means whereby Universal can “cure” the alleged defects, without paying extra-contractual damages. 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 21, 2024, Universal received notice from the Insured’s public adjuster, Ask an Adjuster, the Insured the insured location had damage which occurred on October 10, 2024. Universal inspected the property and documented any visible damage. Thereafter, Universal advised the Insured it accepted coverage for a certain portion of the claim, however, the estimated cost for repairs fell below the applicable policy deductible and coverage for the roof is denied pursuant to the terms of the policy. 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