Civil Remedy Filing

Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations

Filing Number: 804984

Filing Accepted: 2/4/2025

Print Filing

Complainant

Last/Business Name *

DEEB

First Name

ALEX

Street Address *

10899 HANDEL PLACE

City, State Zip *

BOCA RATON, FL 33498

Email Address *

AJ2554@HOTMAIL.COM

Complainant Type: *

Insured

Last/Business Name*		DEEB		First Name		ALEX
Policy # *		12-1055620-02		Claim #*		12-3017414-23

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
Insurer Name*		TYPTAP INSURANCE COMPANY
Insurer Name*
Street Address*
City, State Zip*		,
NAIC Company Code 15885

Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* KYLENA LEE AND ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL FROM, OR AGENT OF, TYPTAP 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 : 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
	Other : Not training, supervising, or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are m
	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
	Other : Misrepresenting the terms of the insurance policy

* 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)(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.
	626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i)		Failing to pay personal injury protection insurance claims within the time periods required by s. 627.736(4)(b).

* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Reference to specific policy language: The violations alleged are statutorily based and do not rely on any specific policy language.

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

TYPTAP 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 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; and 9) making material misrepresentations. On or about September 28, 2022, while the subject policy was in full force and effect, the insured property suffered a loss caused by Hurricane Ian. The areas impacted are believed to be the loft, linen closet, HVAC closet, stairs, living room, storage closet, entry/foyer, dining room, hallway, family room and roofing system. The Insured timely submitted a claim to the Insured for the Hurricane Ian damage and the ensuring damages therefrom. Thereafter, the Insurer assigned claim number 12-3017414-23 to the loss and assigned a field adjuster to inspect the property on July 11, 2023. The Insurer then retained an engineer who performed an inspection on August 21, 2023. Then in a letter dated September 25, 2023, the Insurer notified the Insured that it was denying coverage for the loss. Specifically, the Insurer stated, "We have determined that this loss was caused by wear and tear. The policy does not cover damages that are not from a covered peril." The Insurer's coverage decision is incorrect. Denying coverage for the damage was a breach of the policy as the damages are covered under the policy. Given the denial, the Insured's disagreement with the coverage decision, and the scope and nature of the damage resulting from Hurricane Ian, the Insured retained a public adjuster. After assessing the damage and the true scope of repairs, the public adjuster produced an estimate identifying $145,658.81 in covered damages to the dwelling. The foregoing estimate, photographs and a letter of representation from the public adjuster were sent to the Insurer. 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 inspections of the insured property, the Insurer's representatives failed to conduct thorough and adequate investigations, or the representatives 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's property, but attributed the cause of this damage to wear and tear. Although the Insurer and Insured are in dispute about how the roof was damaged, 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 undervalue the reported loss and pay the Insured as little as possible. 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, the Insurer shifted the burden and cost of investigating and insuring the loss onto the Insured. The Insurer upon the Insured's loss had the duty to provide the full benefits under the policy. These benefits include providing the Insured with a proper investigation of the loss in addition to the funds necessary to return the property to its pre-loss condition. However, during their investigation, the insurer's adjuster did not use a moisture meter, despite the presence of interior water damage. 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 the Insurer significantly underestimated the scope of the loss to the Insured's property. The 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. The foregoing wrongdoings of the Insurer are done in the routine course of its business. 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. Not treating the Insured with good faith claims conduct 3. Looking for ways to deny recovery to the Insured 4. Not adjusting claims and evaluating loss properly, promptly and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to the Insured 5. 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 6. Placing the financial interest of the Insurer over that of the health and safety of the Insured 7. Denying a claim which it knew or should have known the policy and Florida law provided coverage for 8. Conducting inadequate investigations 9. 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: TYPTAP INSURANCE COMPANY P.O. Box 142230 Gainesville FL 32614 claims@thig.com

Comments

User Id		Date Added		Comment
claims@typtap.com		04-04-2025		This is TypTap Insurance Company’s (“TypTap”) response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (“CRN”) filed by Grant Krapf, Esq. on behalf of Alex Deeb (“Complainant”). TypTap reviewed this CRN and conducted a thorough review of the subject claim (“claim”) and confirmed it handled the claim properly. Under the relevant facts and circumstances, the applicable insurance contract did not provide coverage for the claim. Ultimately, TypTap handled the claim in accordance with the policy and all statutory and regulatory requirements. TypTap denies each allegation of bad faith and improper conduct in the CRN. At all times, TypTap acted in good faith, fairly and honestly toward the Insured and with due regard for the Insured’s interests. Otherwise, the CRN is deficient. Generally, pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 624.155, CRNs must identify and set forth statutory provisions insurers allegedly violated in handling insureds’ insurance claims along with specific, relevant insurance contract language and facts and circumstances. The foregoing provides insurers with notice of alleged statutory violations AND the opportunity to cure such alleged violations. Instead of complying with Florida Statutes, Section 624.155, the Complainant's attorney in the CRN contained an inaccurate recitation of the facts, failed to reference specific, relevant insurance policy language; cited irrelevant statutes; failed to offer a valid cure, and relied on inaccurate and conclusory statements. The Complainant's laundry list of inapplicable statutes is insufficient. Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). The CRN cannot serve as the basis of a bad-faith action against TypTap. Upon request by the Florida Department of Financial Services, TypTap will provide to the DFS detailed correspondence TypTap provided regarding the claim

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