Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     805421
Filing Accepted:  2/6/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
YOWELL   First Name   ANDREW AND KAYE
Street Address * 19681 SUMMERLIN RD. #613
City, State Zip * FT. MYERS, FL 33903
Email Address * INSURED@MCDONALDBARNHILL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   YOWELL   First Name   ANDREW AND KAYE
Policy # * ATM212118 Claim #* AM134961
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* GONTRUM First Name * RYAN Initial L
Street Address* 505 S. MAGNOLIA AVENUE
City, State Zip* TAMPA , FL 33606
Email Address * TAL@MCDONALDBARNHILL.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   AMERICAN TRADITIONS INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 12359
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* ANTHONY HUSBAND AND ROBERT DAWSON
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.
 
626.9541(1)(i)(1) Attempting to settle claims on the basis of an application, when serving as a binder or intended to become a part of the policy, or any other material document which was altered without notice to, or knowledge or consent of, the insured.
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)(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.
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).
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(j) Altering or amending an insurance adjuster’s report without: (I) Providing a detailed explanation as to why any change that has the effect of reducing the estimate of the loss was made; and (II) Including on the report or as an addendum to the report a detailed list of all changes made to the report and the identity of the person who ordered each change; or (III) Retaining all versions of the report, and including within each such version, for each change made within such version of the report, the identity of each person who made or ordered such change;
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

***ADDITIONAL STATUTORY PROVISIONS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN VIOLATED AS FOLLOWS:*** §624.155(1)(a) Any person may bring a civil action against an insurer when such person is damaged: By the commission of any of the following acts by the insurer: 1. Section 626.9541(1)(i), (o), or (x); §624.155(1)(a) Any person may bring a civil action against an insurer when such person is damaged: By the commission of any of the following acts by the insurer: 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 towards its insured and with due regard for his interests; 2. Making claims payments to insures or beneficiaries not accompanied by a statement setting forth the coverage under which payments are being made; or 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. §624.155 (5) No punitive damages shall be awarded under this section unless the acts giving rise to the violation occur with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice and these acts are: a. Willful, wanton, and malicious; b. In reckless disregard for the rights of any insured; or c. In reckless disregard for the rights of a beneficiary under a life insurance contract; (8) The damages recoverable pursuant to this section shall include those damages which are a reasonably foreseeable result of a specified violation of this section by the authorized insurer and may include an award or judgment in an amount that exceeds the policy limits. §627.70131 Insurer’s duty to acknowledge communications regarding claims; investigation (1)(a) Upon an insurer’s receiving a communication with respect to a claim, the insurer shall, within 14 calendar days, review and acknowledge receipt of such communication unless payment is made within that period of time or unless the failure to acknowledge is caused by factors beyond the control of the insurer which reasonably prevent such acknowledgement. If the acknowledgement is not in writing, a notification indicating acknowledgement shall be made in the insurer’s claim file and dated. A communication made to or by an agent of an insurer with respect to a claim shall constitute communication to or by the insurer. (b) As used in this subsection, the term “agent” means any person to whom an insurer has granted authority or responsibility to receive or make such communications with respect to claims on behalf of the insurer. (c) This subsection shall not apply to claimants represented by counsel beyond those communications necessary to provide forms and instructions. (2) Such acknowledgement shall be responsive to the communication. If the communication constitutes a notification of a claim, unless the acknowledgement reasonably advises the claimant that the claim appears not to be covered by the insurer, the acknowledgement shall provide necessary claim forms, and instructions, including an appropriate telephone number. (3) Unless otherwise provided by the policy of insurance or by law, within 10 working days after an insurer receives proof of loss statements, the insurer shall begin such investigation as is reasonably necessary unless the failure to begin such investigation is caused by factors beyond the control of the insurer which reasonably prevent the commencement of such investigation. (4) For purposes of this section, the term “insurer” means any residential property insurer. (5) Within 90 days after an insurer receives notice of a property insurance claim from a policyholder, the insurer shall pay or deny such claim unless the failure to pay such claim is caused by factors beyond the control of the insurer which reasonably prevent such payment. Failure to comply with this subsection constitutes a violation of this code. ***Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation*** American Traditions Insurance Company (“ATIC”) failed to adequately adjust and pay the claim covered under the subject insurance policy. Specifically, but not limited to, ATIC failed to properly apply the Loss Settlement and Loss Payment provisions of the policy. In addition to the policy sections specifically cited herein, any endorsements or changes to said sections are relevant to the Insured’s claim for civil remedy. There may be additional policy language relevant to this violation that may be discovered.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Andrew and Kaye Yowell’s claim results from wind and water damage from Hurricane Ian which occurred on September 28, 2022, to their property located at 19681 Summerlin Rd. #613, Ft. Myers, FL 33903. The severe wind affected the roof, gutters, windows, and exterior siding, which in turn allowed water to intrude into the dwelling, causing damage to the ceilings, walls, and floors, rendering the property unsafe, and ultimately resulting in the property being demolished. The property was insured under policy number ATM212118, and was underinsured, with $45,000 in Coverage A limits. The claim was reported to American Traditions Insurance Company (“ATIC”) and was assigned the claim number AM134961. The carrier assigned Anthony Husband as the desk adjuster and Robert Dawson as the field adjuster to the claim. Mr. Dawson inspected the property and prepared a perfunctory estimate totaling just $3,504.02. This estimate failed to include any interior damage whatsoever and omitted all but the most minor of exterior repairs. Pursuant to this estimate, ATIC issued payment of just $505.43 for the loss. This payment included nothing for additional living expenses, and at least partially due to ATIC’s negligence, Mr. and Mrs. Yowell were left homeless for a time. Mr. and Mrs. Yowell hired Stellar Public Adjusting Services Inc. (“Stellar”) to represent their interests in the claim. After the property was demolished, Stellar submitted a claim for the policy limits in accordance with the Valued Policy Law. Photos, a proof of loss, and other relevant documentation were submitted to ATIC in support of the claim. Unfortunately, there is no evidence ATIC ever considered this information or did anything further to adjust the loss. Instead, ATIC decided to demand appraisal of the loss, forcing the insured to incur related expenses and suffer additional delay. Even after the appraisal was complete, and the appraisal panel returned an award for policy limits, ATIC refused to pay, citing without any factual basis that the loss resulted from flood, and filed suit against Mr. and Mrs. Yowell to avoid payment. ATIC’s course of action has continuously delayed indemnification while the Insureds’ costs continue to rise. In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. ATIC has breached this duty in the adjustment of this loss by filing a frivolous lawsuit, refusing to provide proper indemnity, delaying resolution of the claim, and failing to take into consideration documentation provided to them which would support further compensation. ATIC has failed to create and implement adequate guidelines for proper investigation of claims handling and for training and supervision of employees and representatives which have resulted in some of the statutory violations set forth above. ATIC charged Mr. and Mrs. Yowell a substantial premium for these coverages but has refused to tender proper payment when under all circumstances it could have and should have done so had it acted fairly and honestly. Additionally, it appears this is done companywide. The Insureds have been forced to retain legal counsel to protect their interests, defend ATIC’s frivolous lawsuit, and compel payment of the appraisal award. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, ATIC must: 1. Immediately tender all insurance monies due to the Insureds for the loss; 2. Act fairly and honestly towards the Insureds and with due regard for their interests in attempting to settle the claim; 3. Pay statutory interest on the amount of unpaid contractual damages from the date the claim was reported; 4. Cease and desist all present and future bad faith actions with regard to the Insureds’ claim; Failure to cure all defects during the 60-day safe harbor period may result in additional extra-contractual damages.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
kelsasser@bressler.com 04-04-2025 Bressler, Amery & Ross, P.C. 515 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 800 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 April 4, 2025 Via E-Mail, U.S. Mail & Certified Mail Ryan L. Gontrum, Esq. McDonald & Barnhill, P.A. 505 S. Magnolia Avenue Tampa, FL 33606 TAL@MCDONALDBARNHILL.COM Re: Insured : Andrew and Kaye Yowell Complainant : Andrew and Kaye Yowell Policy # : ATM212118 Claim # : AM134961 DFS Filing # : 805421 To Whom It May Concern: We write on behalf of American Traditions Insurance Company (“American Traditions”) to respond to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (“CRN”) submitted to the Department of Financial Services (hereafter “DFS”) on behalf of Andrew Yowell and Kay Yowell (hereafter “Insureds” or “Complainants”). The DFS accepted the Civil Remedy Notice No. 805421 on February 6, 2025. The Civil Remedy Notice alleges violations of the following statutory provisions: The Civil Remedy Notice (“CRN”) alleges that American Traditions violated the following statutes: 626.9541(1)(i)(1) Attempting to settle claims on the basis of an application, when serving as a binder or intended to become a part of the policy, or any other material document which was altered without notice to, or knowledge or consent of, the insured. 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)(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. 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). 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(j) Altering or amending an insurance adjuster’s report without: (I) Providing a detailed explanation as to why any change that has the effect of reducing the estimate of the loss was made; and (II) Including on the report or as an addendum to the report a detailed list of all changes made to the report and the identity of the person who ordered each change; or (III) Retaining all versions of the report, and including within each such version, for each change made within such version of the report, the identity of each person who made or ordered such change; As an initial matter, and to summarize the below, American Traditions Insurance Company (“American Traditions”) hereby denies all of the allegations contained in the Civil Remedy Notice, including but not limited to any allegations identified above. American Traditions hereby denies any allegation of not attempting to settle claims in good faith when it could and should have done so; failing to promptly settle claims when it could and should have done so; failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims; misrepresenting pertinent facts; making material misrepresentations to an insured; misrepresents pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions; denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations, and the remaining list of alleged statutory violations and states that it has at all times handled and adjusted the Insureds’ claim with utmost good faith. Simply put, American Traditions denies any acts or omission that could be construed or found to be deemed bad faith and/or a violation of Florida Statutes § 624.155 and/or § 626.9541, whether expressly stated in the Civil Remedy Notice or implied. Any and all allegations of bad faith are hereby denied and rejected in their entirety by American Traditions. American Traditions affirmatively states that it acted in the utmost good faith at all times. American Traditions denies and rejects the instant Civil Remedy Notice as it fails to comply with the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 624.155. The Civil Remedy Notice is therefore deficient and fails to preserve any and all claims for statutory bad faith under Florida Law. Fla. Stat. § 624.155(1)(b)(1) requires that a civil remedy notice of insurer violation “state with specificity”, inter alia, the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation(s) alleged. Here, the Complainants wholly failed to provide specific facts or circumstances giving rise to each and every statutory violation alleged in the Civil Remedy Notice, and instead simply allege a litany of non-specific, boilerplate, and conclusory allegations against American Traditions as alleged acts of bad faith, as well as blatantly misrepresentative facts. In particular, the Civil Remedy Notice does not provide any factual support specific to the subject insurance claim with regard to the cited statutory violations. The Complainants alleges that “American Traditions has breached this duty in the adjustment of this loss by filing a frivolous lawsuit, refusing to provide proper indemnity, delaying resolution of the claim, and failing to take into consideration documentation provided to them which would support further compensation.” The Complainant goes on to allege “American Traditions charged Mr. and Mrs. Yowell a substantial premium for these coverages but has refused to tender proper payment when under all circumstances it could have and should have done so had it acted fairly and honestly.” The Complainants fail to state with specificity any acts or omissions committed by American Traditions that support these baseless allegations. Furthermore, the Complainants fail to cite any actions that would be indicative of bad faith and mischaracterize the statutory regulations governing the handling and adjustment of an insurance claim. The CRN, filed on behalf of the Complainants, fails to set forth any specific acts, facts, or circumstances, which would give rise to the claimed statutory violations, thus preventing American Traditions from providing any meaningful or complete response thereto. In particular, the CRN does not provide any factual support specific to the subject insurance claim with regard to the alleged statutory violations identified above, nor is there any mention in the CRN as to how the few “facts” stated in the CRN may even be applicable to the statutory violations alleged. The CRN is also replete with misleading and patently false factual allegations. The CRN is filled with half-truths and conclusory allegations, without merit or factual support. The facts objectively refute the aforementioned allegations by the Complainants. Complainants completely fail to state any facts revealing a violation of any of the statutes above in support of their CRN. The CRN then continues to list generic, non-specific statements accusing American Traditions of misconduct without a hint of any fact related to the actual Insureds or the investigation by American Traditions into the actual claim reported. A CRN must state the facts and circumstances that give rise to an alleged violation with specificity. Additionally, the CRN does not refer to any specific policy language that is pertinent to the allegations of bad faith, merely stating “Loss Settlement and Loss Payment provisions of the policy” without including any specific policy language as required by the Department’s form. Additionally, the CRN provides a blanket catch-all stating, “in addition to the policy sections specifically cited herein, any endorsements or changes to said sections are relevant to the Insured’s claim for civil remedy. There may be additional policy language relevant to this violation that may be discovered.” The failure to provide specific reference to policy language is direct and clear noncompliance with the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 624.155(3)(b)(3). “Courts have found that listing whole sections of the insurance policy constitutes insufficient specificity.” See Fox v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., No. 8:16-CV-3254-T-23MAP, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65123, 2017 WL 1541294 at *2; see also Julien v. United Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 311 So. 3d 875, 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (“Here, Julien did not substantially comply with the specificity standard and this was more than a mere technical defect.”). Therefore, failure to include policy language renders the CRN deficient on its face, as to form and substance and the reference to the policy as a whole is insufficient to place American Traditions on notice of the allegations set forth against it in connection with this CRN. Notwithstanding the above, by way of brief background, American Traditions issued a mobile homeowner’s policy of insurance identified as Policy Number ATM212118 to Insured, Andrew Yowell for the subject property located at 19681 Summerlin Rd. 613, Ft. Myers, FL 33908 (hereinafter “subject property” or “insured risk”), with effective dates of coverage from October 29, 2021 to October 29, 2022. On or about September 29, 2022, American Traditions was provided with notice of a loss reported to have occurred at the subject property as a result of Hurricane Ian. American Traditions immediately commenced an investigation, including issuance of a claim number, and a written acknowledge of claim and notification of mediation rights, as well as a copy of the homeowner claim bill of rights. American Traditions further assigned an independent adjusting firm to assist with inspecting the subject property. On October 15, 2022, independent field adjuster, Robert Dawson, met with Mr. Yowell and completed an inspection of the subject double wide mobile home. Mr. Dawson’s inspection revealed some storm related damage to the screen door and wall screens on the screen room, as well as to gutters/downspouts and fascia metal on the exterior. Notably, he observed no evidence of wind damage to the raised seam metal roof system. Perhaps most importantly, Mr. Dawson noted that there was absolutely no evidence of water damage caused by a covered loss because the interior of the home revealed flood waters within the structure that measured 3’6” throughout the risk. Mr. Dawson further noted no covered damage being claimed by the Insured to personal property nor additional living expenses. Following Mr. Dawson’s inspection, American Traditions timely issued two (2) separate claim communications. First, on or about November 24, 2022, American Traditions issued a letter noting that it was issuing payment in the amount of $505.43, which corresponded to the amount of Mr. Dawson’s estimate based upon his physical inspection of the property less the applicable 5% hurricane deductible of $2,250.00. This letter also noted that American Traditions was issuing this payment as an advance in good faith as its investigation remained ongoing. The following date, on or about November 25, 2022, a second letter was issued wherein American Traditions advised that its investigation revealed that there were flood waters within the structure measuring 3’6”. To that end, American Traditions advised that the policy does not afford coverage for damage caused directly or indirectly by flood or surface water. As such, no further payment was issued on the claim. Thereafter, on or about December 29, 2022, Stellar Public Adjusting Services (“Stellar”) e-mailed American Traditions to advise that it had been retained on behalf of the Insureds in connection with the claim. Attached to that communication was a copy of the contract between Stellar and the Insureds dated December 23, 2022. Thereafter the parties engaged in various communications and ultimately, notwithstanding the partial declination of coverage, this matter proceeded to appraisal which commenced in approximately September 2023. As a part of the appraisal process, American Traditions learned, for the first time in approximately September 2023, that the entire mobile home park where the insured risk was located had been heavily damaged by flood such that it was no longer there. As such, neither party’s appraisers nor the umpire were able to inspect the subject property. Given that he matter was already in appraisal, American Traditions’ appraiser, Warren Ritter, provided the original field adjusting photographs from October 2022 along with a proposed estimate to the Insureds’ appraiser, Rami Boaziz to assist in the appraisal process. Unfortunately, Mr. Boaziz rejected Mr. Ritter’s recommendations despite being advised of the substantial flood component associated with the claimed damage and being provided with proof of the condition of the insured risk only days after the reported event. Rather, Mr. Boaziz demanded policy limits on all coverages, thereby forcing this matter to umpire. Umpire, Anthony Profitt, ultimately generated an appraisal award form signed by himself and the Insureds’ appraiser, Mr. Boaziz, awarding policy limits on all coverages. Upon receipt of this Award, Mr. Ritter reached out to Mr. Profitt via e-mail to request a breakdown of the award of flood versus wind based upon the carrier’s coverage letter dated November 25, 2022. However, Mr. Profitt expressly refused to provide an estimate or any written breakdown delineating those damages he found attributable to wind damage versus flood damage. The delineation of damages attributable to wind versus flood is imperative to American Traditions’ ability to comply with the appraisal provision because it had timely declined to extend coverage for the Insureds’ flood damage and the express terms of the subject insurance policy allow American Traditions to retain its right to challenge any coverage disputes. In fact, relevant Florida case law supports that the use of line-item appraisal awards allows courts to “readily identify any coverage issues that arise during the course of appraisal and resolve these without having to try and decipher what value the appraiser assigned for a particular type of damage." Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Olympus Ass'n, 34 So. 3d 791, 796 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). Furthermore, under Florida law, issues relating to insurance coverage challenges are questions exclusively for the judiciary. Id. In light of Mr. Proffitt’s refusal to provide a line-item estimate or to delineate damages attributable to wind versus flood, American Traditions was forced to file a legal action with the courts seeking declaratory relief, modification of the appraisal Award and that the Award be vacated. That action remains pending at this time. Therefore, based upon the irrefutable timeline set forth immediately above, American Traditions vehemently denies that it filed a frivolous lawsuit or that it has failed to make every effort to act reasonably and with the utmost faith in the handling of this insurance claim. To conclude, the Complainants posit the aforementioned conduct and alleged statutory violations without stating specific supporting facts to each and every statutory violation alleged. Instead, the facts stated in support of the alleged statutory violations are wholly conclusory in nature. A CRN must state the facts and circumstances that give rise to an alleged violation with specificity sufficient to allow an insurer to cure the alleged violation within the sixty-day statutory period. Lane v. Westfield Insurance Company, 862 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Merely stating a litany of alleged wrongful conduct and statutory violations in a conclusory manner is insufficient without stating supporting facts specific to the insurance claim. The CRN does not state with specificity the information required by the Department, such as the circumstances giving rise to the violation, the names of the individuals involved in the violation and the specific policy language at issue. In consideration of the foregoing, it instead appears the Complainant has taken an overly broad and vague “kitchen sink” approach to the drafting of the instant CRN as it concerns policy provisions, statutory violations asserted, and vague, conclusory facts without specificity or regard for application, which is improper under Florida law. On these grounds, the CRN is deficient on its face, and thus, in invalid. See Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). Lastly, the cure demanded in the CRN is deficient as it is entirely broad, ambiguous, vague, and improper. The cure demands that American Traditions “1. Immediately tender all insurance monies due to the Insureds for the loss; 2. Act fairly and honestly towards the Insureds and with due regard for their interests in attempting to settle the claim; 3. Pay statutory interest on the amount of unpaid contractual damages from the date the claim was reported; 4. Cease and desist all present and future bad faith actions with regard to the Insureds’ claim.” This demand is the functional equivalent of “pay me what you owe me.” See Rousso v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., 2010 WL 7367059, *5 (S.D. Fla. 2010). Moreover, Complainant’s’ cure demand is overly vague, preventing American Traditions from being able to cure the alleged violations. Instead, it places American Traditions in the position of having to speculate as to what Complainants consider payment in full. The proposed cure fails to identify what Complainants perceive to be the fair value of the insurance claim or the benefits they are owed that have not been tendered, making it impossible for American Traditions to determine the amount necessary to cure the CRN. Accordingly, the CRN is insufficient on its face to subject American Traditions to liability. In sum, American Traditions affirmatively denies any failure to handle, investigate and adjust the claim in bad faith, and all of the allegations contained in the CRN are hereby denied. In fact, American Traditions contends that it has acted at all times with the utmost good faith towards the Insured, and that American Traditions has properly handled and investigated the subject insurance claim. To the extent that this response does not address each and every allegation of bad faith conduct made by the Complainants, American Traditions hereby expressly denies any and all allegations of bad faith conduct or omission set forth in the CRN, and/or any alleged violation of Florida Statute §624.155 and Florida Statute §626.9541 or any other statutory section set forth therein. Again, American Traditions insists they have acted, at all times, in utmost good faith. Simply put, American Traditions denies any act or omission that could be construed or found to be deemed bad faith and/or a violation of Florida Statute § 624.155 and Florida Statute §626.9541. For the foregoing reasons, the CRN filed on behalf of the Complainants fails to comply with the requirements of § 624.155(3)(b). Should you need any additional information from American Traditions regarding the foregoing, please feel free to contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, /s/ Krista L. Elsasser Krista L. Elsasser, Esq.
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