Filing Number: 805312
|
| Filing Accepted: 2/5/2025 |
| Last/Business Name
*
|
|
|
| Street Address
*
|
|
6644 ROYAL PALM BEACH BLVD |
| City, State Zip
*
|
|
WEST PALM BEACH,
FL
33412
|
| Email Address
*
|
|
SDJOHNSON192@GMAIL.COM |
| Complainant Type:
*
|
|
Insured |
|
| Last/Business Name* |
|
RAY |
|
First Name |
|
JOHNNY |
| Policy # * |
|
W013116649 |
|
Claim #* |
|
3300480948 |
|
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 |
|
|
| Insurer Type
*
|
|
 Authorized Insurer
 Unauthorized Insurer
|
|
|
| Insurer Name |
|
|
| Insurer Name* |
|
TOWER HILL INSURANCE EXCHANGE
|
| Insurer Name* |
|
|
| Street Address* |
|
|
| City, State Zip* |
|
,
|
|
NAIC Company Code 17179 |
|
|
| Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):*
DANIELLE TARTER, AND ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL FROM, OR AGENT OF, TOWER HILL INSURANCE EXCHANGE 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
:
Not training, supervising, or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made,
|
|
|
Other
:
Not adjusting claims and evaluating loss properly
|
|
|
Other
:
Shifting the burden of insuring the loss to the Insured
|
|
|
Other
:
Failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims
|
|
|
Other
:
Making material misrepresentations
|
|
|
*
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)(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.
Tower Hill Insurance Exchange Company (the "Insurer") has committed the following in handling the Insured's claim: 1) failing to act in due diligence and good faith to resolve claims; 2) placing the financial interest of Insurer before that of the 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 August 17, 2023, while the subject policy was in full force and effect, the insured property suffered a loss caused by wind. The areas impacted include but are not limited to the roofing system and exterior surfaces. The Insured timely submitted a claim to the Insurer for wind damages and ensuing damage therefrom. Thereafter, the Insurer assigned claim number 3300480948 to the loss and sent a field adjuster to inspect the property. Given the scope and nature of the damage, the Insured retained a public adjuster. After assessing the damage and the true scope of repairs, the public adjuster prepared an estimate identifying $77,539.28 in covered damage to the dwelling. The foregoing estimate, photographs, and a letter of representation from the public adjuster were sent to the Insurer who subsequently, in a coverage determination letter dated January 26, 2024, notified the Insured that it was denying coverage for the loss.
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 inspection of the insured property, the Insurer's adjuster failed to conduct a thorough and adequate investigation, or the adjuster 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 issued a wrongful denial. The Insurer based this denial on the rationale that the damage sustained to the roof was a result of " deterioration and wear and tear, allowing water intrusion to occur adjacent to the solar pool water healer panel." The Insurer moreover alleged that water damage in the Insured's attic was a result of " rain leakage from the roof." Although the Insurer and Insured are in dispute about how the dwelling 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 conduct outlined above is done within the Insurer's routine course of the 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. Claim delay
3. Not treating the Insured with good faith claims conduct
4. Looking for way to reduce recovery to the Insured
5. Looking for ways to deny recovery to the Insured
6. Not adjusting claims and evaluating loss properly, promptly and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to the Insured
7. 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
8. Placing the financial interest of the Insurer over that of the health and safety of the Insured
9. Conducting inadequate investigations
10. 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:
Attorney for Tower Hill Insurance Exchange Company
Ana J. Cohen, Esquire
acohen@gaflaw.com
|
|
|
*
|
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
|