Civil Remedy Filing

Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations

Filing Number: 805047

Filing Accepted: 2/4/2025

Print Filing

Complainant

Last/Business Name *

BARRETT

First Name

JULIE

Street Address *

3730 BELLE VISTA DRIVE

City, State Zip *

ST. PETE BEACH, FL 33706

Email Address *

WITHHELD

Complainant Type: *

Insured

Last/Business Name*		BARRETT		First Name		JULIE
Policy # *		12-1079921-03		Claim #*		12-3027197-24

Attorney

Attorney is Applicable

Last Name*	DANIELS First Name * MONICA Initial E
Street Address*		560 VILLAGE BOULEVARD, SUITE 110
City, State Zip*		WEST PALM BEACH , FLORIDA 33409
Email Address *		MDANIELS@THEDANIELS-LAWGROUP.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):* ALONZO SMITH, TREVOR PAYNE, AND ANY AND ALL ADJUSTERS, MANAGERS, SUPERVISORS, AND INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CLAIM.
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty

Reason for Notice *

	Unfair Trade Practice
	Claim Delay
	Claim Denial
	Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer

* 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)(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.

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; 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. E. Additional Coverages. 1. Debris Removal. … SECTION I – PERILS INSURED AGAINST A. Coverage A – Dwelling and Coverage B – Other Structures. We insure against direct physical loss to property described in Coverages A and B. … J. Loss Payment. We will adjust all losses with you.

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

Julie Barrett and Monica Malone (the “Insureds”) purchased an insurance policy from TypTap Insurance Company (“Insurer”), with Policy number 12-1079921-03 (the “Policy”), to cover their property located at 3730 Belle Vista Drive, St. Pete Beach, FL 33706 (the “Property”). On October 10, 2024, Hurricane Milton struck the Property. The excessive winds from Milton caused damage to the roof and various exterior elements of the Property, which necessitate extensive repairs—including a full roof replacement—to return the Property to its pre-loss condition. The Insureds immediately reported the loss to Insurer, mitigated the damages, and complied with all applicable post-loss obligations. They also hired a public adjuster to assist them with their damages and the claims process. The Insurer assigned claim number 12-3027197-24 (the “Claim”) to the claim. The Insurer inspected the Property and prepared a woefully deficient initial estimate that failed to address the full scope of damages and repairs necessary to return the Property to its pre-loss condition. The Insurer’s evaluation of the Property’s loss was insultingly low given the observable damages. Of note, TypTap provided only minimal coverage for portions of the roof, gutters, soffit, ridge cap, and fascia, which all sustained significant damage as a result of Hurricane Milton, including a tree falling on the Insureds’ roof. The Insureds provided the Insurer with a true and accurate estimate of the related damages, extensive photographs of the damages, and complied with all of the Insurer’s requests for documentation and information. The Insurer acknowledged coverage and admitted liability for damages to the Property. The Insureds dispute that the meager amount unilaterally determined by the Insurer is sufficient to restore their Property to its pre-loss condition. The Insureds understandably became extremely frustrated by the Insurer’s clear delay tactics, failure to properly indemnify them for this Claim in a timely fashion, and failure to adjust the Claim in good-faith. To combat any further attempts by the Insurer to delay the Claim and its failure to make the Insureds whole, the Insureds had no choice but to retain legal counsel to assist with the Claim. Without sufficient funds to repair their property, the Insureds continue to suffer additional damages. The Insurer failed to make any meaningful effort to inspect the Property or adjust the Claim despite the Insureds expressing their clear disagreement with the Insurer’s handling of the Claim. Despite providing all necessary documentation to the Insurer to make good on its duty to restore the Insureds to their pre-loss condition, Insurer grossly undervalued the claim and only contemplated a fraction of the amount of Insureds’ damages. The scope of the damages considered by the Insurer is an insult to the Insureds and is far less money than necessary to complete the repairs to their Property. The Insurer’s refusal to properly investigate, adjust and fully compensate the Insureds for this Claim undoubtedly evidences the Insurer’s violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), Florida Statutes, which requires the Insurer to “adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.” All available information leads to one conclusion – the Property was damaged by a covered cause of loss for which the Insureds are entitled to full and complete compensation. The Insurer’s obligation to promptly settle the Insureds’ claim is undeniable, and therefore, the Insurer has also violated Fla. Stat. Section 624.155(1)(b)(1) and 624.155(1)(b)(3). The Insurer’s conduct continues to be egregious because the Insurer retained biased and inexperienced individuals who approached the loss with an eye towards underpayment. The actions taken by the Insurer in the handling and adjustment of the Claim are willful, wanton, and in disregard for the rights of the Insureds, and have occurred with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice in violation of the law. This practice includes the Insurer hiring biased and inexperienced adjusters and failing to properly and timely pay for obvious damages owed to its Insureds. The Insurer’s actions amount to, but are not limited to: A. “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 the insured and with due regard for her or his interests;” B. “Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue”; C. “Except as to liability coverages, failing to promptly settle claims, when the obligation to settle a claim has become reasonably clear;” D. “Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims;” E. Claim Delay; F. Unsatisfactory Settlement Offers; and G. Unfair Trade Practices. In addition to the above statutory violations, the Insurer’s adjuster violated the following ethical requirements of the Florida Administrative Code 69B-220.201: (3) Code of Ethics . . . An adjuster shall put the duty for fair and honest treatment of the claimant above the adjuster’s own interests in every instance. The following are standards of conduct that define ethical behavior, and shall constitute a code of ethics that shall be binding on all adjusters: (b) An adjuster shall treat all claimants equally. 2. An adjuster shall adjust all claims strictly in accordance with the insurance contract. (c) An adjuster shall not approach investigations, adjustments, and settlements in a manner prejudicial to the insured. (d) An adjuster shall make truthful and unbiased reports of the facts after making a complete investigation. (e) An adjuster shall handle every adjustment and settlement with honesty and integrity, and allow a fair adjustment or settlement to all parties without any remuneration to himself except that to which he is legally entitled. (f) An adjuster, upon undertaking the handling of a claim, shall act with dispatch and due diligence in achieving a proper disposition of the claim. (o) An adjuster shall not undertake the adjustment of any claim concerning which the adjuster is not currently competent and knowledgeable as to the terms and conditions of the insurance coverage, or which otherwise exceeds the adjuster’s current expertise. The Insureds are dutiful customers who made it a priority to pay their insurance premiums and to ensure that in such an event as the one here, their property would be covered. The Insureds timely filed their claim and fulfilled all post-loss obligations. Insurer acknowledged the loss, assigned a claim number, inspected the property, accepted coverage for the loss, and then grossly undervalued the claim. Insurer has failed to provide the Insureds with qualified representatives to ensure the claim was initially adjusted, evaluated, and paid properly. To deny the Insureds the benefit of the bargain after they have satisfied all of their obligations is morally and ethically reprehensible, and reeks of Unfair Trade Practice. Insurer is putting its profits ahead of its contractual and statutory obligations. In Florida the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. The Insurer has failed to create and implement adequate guidelines for proper investigation to evaluate claims handling and for training and supervision of employees. The Insurer has failed and/or refused to thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigate and evaluate the Insureds’ insurance claim and damages. Therefore, the Insurer breached its statutory and ethical duties, and has put profits ahead of the duties it owed to its Insureds when they most needed the insurance coverage they had paid for. Florida Statute § 624.02 defines “insurance” as a contract where one undertakes to indemnify another or pay or allow specified amounts, or determinable benefit, upon determinable contingencies. Inherent is the fact that payment must be made timely and promptly. This timely and prompt payment allows the insured to mitigate their damages and place them back to the position they were in prior to the loss, as quickly as possible. The Insurer breached this duty. The Insurer has refused and failed to tender all insurance proceeds to the Insureds upon demand. The Insurer’s refusal and/or failure to settle the insurance claim when it, under all circumstances, should have done so, is wrongful conduct. The Insurer is failing to promptly settle the Insureds’ claim as it is required to do so by contract, in order to influence settlements. To cure the defects outlined in this civil remedy notice, the Insurer must (1) immediately, and under no circumstances no later than sixty days from the date of this civil remedy notice, tender all insurance monies due and owing to the Insured under the Policy, specifically $104,635.21 pursuant to the public adjuster’s repair estimate, less applicable deductible and prior payment; (2) ensure that payment made would be adequate to place the Insureds and their Property back in the pre-loss condition; and (3) reimburse the Insureds’ attorney’s fees and costs, since the Insured was forced to hire legal counsel in order to receive adequate payment. Should the Insurer fail to comply with the demands set forth in this civil remedy notice, the Insurer must prepare to pay the full cost of its failure to rightfully indemnify the Insureds, including all future damages that come about as a result of the Insurer’s failure to comply with the demands set forth in this civil remedy notice. This Notice is giving in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by section 624.155(3)(b), Florida Statutes.

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 on behalf of Julie Barrett (“Insured”). TypTap reviewed this CRN and conducted a thorough review of the subject claim (“claim”) and confirmed it handled the claim properly. Regarding an aspect of the claim, TypTap issued payments for it on the information available to TypTap and the circumstances at the time of such payments. 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 Insured’s attorney in the CRN contained an inaccurate recitation of the facts, failed to reference specific, relevant insurance policy language; cited irrelevant statutes; and relied on inaccurate and conclusory statements. The Insured’s laundry list of inapplicable statutes is insufficient. Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). Furthermore, the Insured’s attorney filed a lawsuit based on the claim shortly after the filing of this CRN. Regardless of the fact there were no violations in this claim, any action by TypTap to cure violations alleged in the CRN could have been used against TypTap in the lawsuit. The foregoing shows abuse by the Insured and the Insured’s attorney of the CRN and legal processes. Also and generally, the CRN constitutes an abuse of the CRN process, contravenes the purpose of CRNs, which is to promote resolution of issues in insurance claims. The CRN must be rejected, and it cannot serve as the basis of any 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