Civil Remedy Filing

Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations

Filing Number: 805588

Filing Accepted: 2/6/2025

Print Filing

Complainant

Last/Business Name *

ACOSTA

First Name

JEREMIAH

Street Address *

8435 AGRESS AVENUE

City, State Zip *

NORTH PORT, FL 34287

Email Address *

WITHHELD

Complainant Type: *

Insured

Last/Business Name*		ACOSTA		First Name		JEREMIAH
Policy # *		12-1007391-04		Claim #*		12-3008666-22

Attorney

Attorney is Applicable

Last Name*	MULLINAX First Name * MATTHEW Initial
Street Address*		908 W. HORATIO STREET
City, State Zip*		TAMPA , FLORIDA 33606
Email Address *		MATT@MAKRISMULLINAX.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):* ERNESTINE FOSTER, CLAIMS ADJUSTER
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty

Reason for Notice *

	Claim Delay
	Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
	Claim Denial
	Unfair Trade Practice
	Other : Unfair Claims Settlement Practices
	Other : Unreasonable Investigation

* 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)(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)(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)(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.

THE PERILS INSURED AGAINST SECTION. THE LOSS PAYMENT PROVISION. THE LOSS SETTLEMENT PROVISION. THE POLICY PROVISIONS CITED IN TYPTAP INSURANCE COMPANY’S (“TYPTAP”)’S LETTERS RELATED TO THIS CLAIM. ANY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE POLICY WHICH TYPTAP BELIEVES LIMIT OR PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR THE INSURED’S LOSS.

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

• 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i) -- Unfair claim settlement practices. Adjusters Code of Ethics – Florida Administrative Code: • 69B-220.201(3)(B)(2) – An adjuster shall adjust all claims strictly in accordance with the insurance contract. • 69B-220.201(3)(C) – An adjuster shall not approach investigations, adjustments, and settlements in a manner prejudicial to the insured. • 69B-220.201(3)(D) – An adjuster shall make truthful and unbiased reports of the facts after making a complete investigation. • 69B-220.201(3)(E) – An adjuster shall handle every adjustment and settlement with honesty and integrity and allow a fair adjustment or settlement to all parties. • 69B-220.201(3)(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. ON OR ABOUT SEPTEMBER 28, 2022, WHILE THE POLICY WAS IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SUSTAINED A COVERED LOSS AS A RESULT OF HURRICANE IAN AND RELATED DAMAGES WERE FOUND TO THE ROOF, EXTERIOR, AND INTERIOR OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. TYPTAP INSURANCE COMPANY (“TYPTAP”) RECEIVED TIMELY NOTICE OF THE LOSS AND ASSIGNED CLAIM NUMBER 12-3008666-22, AND ADJUSTER ERNESTINE FOSTER (“MRS. FOSTER”) TO INVESTIGATE THE CLAIM. ON OCTOBER 3, 2022, AN ASSIGNED FIELD ADJUSTER FROM TYPTAP CONDUCTED AN INITIAL INSPECTION OF THE DAMAGES OF THE PROPERTY. THEREAFTER, TYPTAP ISSUED A COVERAGE LETTER TO THE INSURED DATED OCTOBER 12, 2022, IN WHICH THEY WRONGFULLY UNDERPAID AND UNDERVALUED THE CLAIM. THEIR ESTIMATE UNDERVALUED THE COST TO REPAIR AND REPLACE ITEMS FOR THE PROPERTY. THEIR INITIAL COVERAGE LETTER ALSO STATED THAT THIS INITIAL ESTIMATE DID NOT CONSTITUTE FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT FOR THE DAMAGES ISSUED FOR THE CLAIM, AND THAT INSURED MAY NOTIFY OF ADDITIONAL LOSS OR DAMAGES TO THE PROPERTY TO ENSURE THAT NECESSARY REPAIRS BE MADE TO THE PROPERTY. DUE TO TYPTAP NOT PERFORMING A FULL AND REASONABLE INVESTIGATION OF THE EXTENT OF THE DAMAGE TO THE PROPERTY AND SEVERELY UNDERVALUING THE CLAIM, THIS FORCED THE INSUREDS AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES TO RETAIN THEIR OWN PROFESSIONALS TO PERFORM AN INSPECTION OF THE PROPERTY AND INCUR ADDITIONAL COST. THEREAFTER, ASK AN ADJUSTER (“AAA”) WAS RETAINED FOR A SECOND ESTIMATE TO BE CONDUCTED ON THE PROPERTY. AAA PUBLIC ADJUSTER IDENTIFIED MULTIPLE DAMAGES THAT TYPTAP KNEW EXISTED BUT FAILED TO ADDRESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR POLICY TERMS. DURING THE INSPECTION, AAA FOUND SEVERE HURRICANE DAMAGE TO THE ROOF, THE EXTERIOR OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE INTERIOR. AAA’S ESTIMATE SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRASTED THE INITIAL ESTIMATE PROVIDED BY TYPTAP’S FIELD ADJUSTER. TYPTAP’S REPORT PROVIDED FOR AN ESTIMATE OF DAMAGES TO THE DWELLING AND OTHER STRUCTURES AT $18,559; WHILE AAA’S PUBLIC ADJUSTER ESTIMATED DAMAGES TO THE PROPERTY AT $130,359. ADDITIONALLY, AAA CONCLUDED THAT THE DAMAGE TO THE PROPERTY CONSTITUTED FOR MORE THAN 80% OF THE FULL REPLACEMENT COST OF THE BUILDING; THEREBY INVOKING TYPTAP ‘S COVERAGE UNDER SECTION D OF THEIR POLICY IN WHICH THEY AGREE TO PAY THE COST TO REPAIR OR REPLACE, WITHOUT DEDUCTION FOR DEPRECIATION WHEN THE DAMAGED BUILDING IS 80% OR MORE OF THE FULL REPLACEMENT COST AFTER RECEIVING AAA’S ESTIMATE, MRS. FOSTER STATED IN HER LETTER DATED AUGUST 4, 2023, THAT TYPTAP WAS NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE AMOUNT AND THAT THE ESTIMATE PROVIDED BY AAA. MRS. FOSTER STATED THE ESTIMATE INCLUDED ITEMS THAT WERE “UNNECESSARY” AND DEEMED THE AMOUNT FOR DAMAGES “EXCESSIVE”. MRS. FOSTER OR TYPTAP DID NOT STATE THAT ITEMS WERE NOT COVERED UNDER THEIR POLICY, BUT ONLY THAT TYPTAP DEEMED THEM “UNNECESSARY” AND THE DAMAGE COST WERE “EXCESSIVE.” THERE WAS NO LEGAL BASIS PROVIDED FOR THE DENIAL OF THE ITEMS OR SPECIFICITY AS TO WHY ITEMS WERE ASSESSED “UNNECESSARY”. THIS EVALUATION BY TYPTAP AND MRS. FOSTER IS IN VIOLATION OF FLORIDA LAW AND ETHICS TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY AS WELL AS THEIR ADJUSTERS. IN ACCORDANCE WITH FLORIDA LAW, AN ADJUSTER’S ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPERTY DAMAGES AND CLAIM NEED ONLY BE BASED ON THEIR CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO THE INSURED UNDER THE POLICY PROVIDED. SUBSEQUENTLY, TYPTAP REINSPECTED THE PROPERTY, AND DETERMINED THAT ADDITIONAL MONEY WAS OWED UNDER COVERAGE A OF THE POLICY AND PROVIDED ANOTHER PAYMENT FOR REPAIRS TO THE PROPERTY IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL AMOUNT OF $3,058; STILL GROSSLY UNDERVALUING THE DAMAGES TO THE PROPERTY AND UNDERMINING THE CLAIM. LASTLY, TYPTAP CONCEDED TO AN ADDITIONAL PAYMENT OF $6,000 DUE TO THE VAST DISCREPANCIES IN THE ESTIMATES IN THEIR ATTEMPT TO SETTLE THE CLAIM. THE CORRESPONDENCE AND ESTIMATES PROVIDED BY TYPTAP CONCLUDED THAT DURING ITS INVESTIGATION OF THE CLAIM, THE INDEPENDENT FIELD ADJUSTER DID FIND DIRECT, PHYSICAL LOSS TO THE PROPERTY, AS DESCRIBED IN THE SUBJECT POLICY, WHICH WOULD TRIGGER COVERAGE. NEVERTHELESS, TYPTAP’S INVESTIGATION WAS INSUFFICIENT AND FAILED TO INCLUDE THE FULL DAMAGES AND COMPLETE REPAIRS COVERED BY THE POLICY AND FLORIDA LAW. TYPTAPS ASSESSMENT OF THE DAMAGE TO THE PROPERTY SEVERELY UNDERVALUED ITEMS INCLUDED IN THEIR ESTIMATE, AND DID NOT CONTAIN OTHER DAMAGED ITEMS THAT ARE COVERED BY THE POLICY UNDER COVERAGE A AND B. TYPTAP FAILED TO COMPLY WITH ITS LOSS SETTLEMENT PROVISION. RATHER THAN ISSUING THE PROPER PAYMENT OR ATTEMPTING TO REACH AN ADEQUATE AND FAIR AGREEMENT WITH ITS INSURED; TYPTAP IS DELAYING AND UNDERVALUING THE CLAIM. FURTHERMORE, TYPTAP DID NOT AGREE TO APPRAISAL REQUESTED BY INSURED ON AUGUST 09, 2023, IN HIS ATTEMPT TO EFFECTUATE SETTLEMENT AND RESOLVE THE HUGE DISCREPANCIES IN THE ESTIMATES; IN ACCORDANCE WITH TYPTAP’S POLICY TERMS AS TO LOSS AMOUNTS THAT ARE VALUED MORE THAN $500 PRIOR TO THE APPLICATION OF THE DEDUCTIBLE. UPON INFORMATION AND BELIEF, TYPTAP PERFORMS THE SUBJECT ACTIONS AS A BUSINESS PRACTICE, INCLUDING DELAYING AND UNDERVALUING CLAIMS, TO DISSUADE ITS INSUREDS FROM PURSUING THE CLAIM, TO THE INSURED’S DETRIMENT, AND TO INCREASE FINANCIAL PROFITS FOR TYPTAP. ULTIMATELY, TYPTAP’S INVESTIGATION WAS UNSATISFACTORY IN ITS DUTY UNDER THE CONTRACT TO ITS INSUREDS BECAUSE THE INVESTIGATION HAD AN OUTCOME OF UNDERPAYING THE INSUREDS’ CLAIM. TYPTAP’S FAILURE TO CONDUCT A REASONABLE INVESTIGATION AND FAILURE TO PAY THE INSUREDS FOR THE COVERED LOSS UNDER THE POLICY ISSUED BY TYPTAP EXHIBITS BAD FAITH. IN THE EVENT TYPTAP BELIEVES THIS CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE LACKS INFORMATION NECESSARY FOR TYPTAP TO CURE THE DEFECTS OUTLINED IN THIS NOTICE, OR THAT IT LACKS REQUIRED SPECIFICS IN ANY WAY, TYPTAP SHOULD CONTACT THE FILER OF THIS NOTICE DIRECTLY AND ALERT THEM TO THAT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, PRIOR TO ANY FORMAL RESPONSE. THIS NOTICE IS FILED AND GIVEN TO TYPTAP TO PERFECT THE RIGHT TO PURSUE THE CIVIL REMEDY THAT SECTION 624.155 AUTHORIZES. TO CURE THE DEFECTS OUTLINED IN THIS CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE, TYPTAP MUST: (1). ADMIT FULL COVERAGE FOR THE INSUREDS’ LOSS; (2). PAY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ESTIMATE PREPARED BY THE INSURED’S PUBLIC ADJUSTER IN THE AMOUNT OF $130,359; (3). PAY STATUTORY INTEREST ON THE AMOUNT OF UNPAID CONTRACT DAMAGES FROM THE DATE OF THE LOSS TO THE PRESENT TIME PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE §627.70131. A COPY OF THIS FORM SUBMITTED TO THE FDFS HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE FOLLOWING PARTIES PROVIDING THEM NOTICE OF THE FILING OF THE CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE: ------------------------------ ERNESTINE FOSTER CLAIMS EXAMINER CLAIMS@TYPTAP.COM TYPTAP INSURANCE, INC. 1000 CENTURY PARK DRIVE, TAMPA FL 33607

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 Jeremiah Acosta (“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 on the same day as 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