Civil Remedy Filing

Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations

Filing Number: 805642

Filing Accepted: 2/7/2025

Print Filing

Complainant

Last/Business Name *

QUIRINDONGO

First Name

PRISCILLA & DAMIAN

Street Address *

555 STAFFORDSHIRE DRIVE

City, State Zip *

JACKSONVILLE, FL 32225

Email Address *

P.REYES94@GMAIL.COM

Complainant Type: *

Insured

Last/Business Name*		QUIRINDONGO		First Name		PRISCILLA & DAMIAN
Policy # *		CFD20027600081		Claim #*		CFL200131284

Attorney

Attorney is Applicable

Last Name*	CAMPIONE First Name * FRANK Initial J
Street Address*		501 W. BAY STREET SUITE 100
City, State Zip*		JACKSONVILLE , FLORIDA 32202
Email Address *		FRANK@CAMPIONELAWPA.COM

Violation

Insurer Type *		Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer

Insurer Name
Insurer Name*		CYPRESS PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
Insurer Name*
Street Address*
City, State Zip*		,
NAIC Company Code 10953

Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* RYLAND DEMARCO AND ALL OTHER CLAIMS HANDLERS OR REPRESENTATIVES RESPONSIBLE FOR HANDLING THE CLAIM
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.

	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.
	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.

* 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 AND SECTION I – PERILS INSURED AGAINST, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: COVERAGE A – DWELLING. ADDITIONAL COVERAGES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ORDINANCE OR LAW, AND ALL OTHER ADDITIONAL COVERAGES PROVIDED UNDER THE APPLICABLE POLICY. ALL OTHER APPLICABLE COVERAGE PROVISIONS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ALL COVERAGE(S) PROVIDED BY ENDORSEMENT OR RIDER, THE DECLARATIONS PAGE, LOSS PAYMENT OR SETTLEMENT PROVISIONS, AND ALL OTHER PROVISIONS PROVIDING COVERAGE OF THE CLAIM AS PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED TO THE INSURER. FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE SECTIONS VIOLATED 69B-220.201(3) – CODE OF ETHICS. THE WORK OF ADJUSTING INSURANCE CLAIMS ENGAGES THE PUBLIC TRUST. 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: 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)(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.

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

Cypress Property & Casualty Insurance Company, (“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 financial interest of Insurer before that of the Policyholder and Claimant; 3. Not adjusting the claims promptly and fairly; 4. Not attempting in good faith to handle claims; 5. Looking for ways to deny full recovery to the Insured. On or about July 30th, 2023, Claimant suffered substantial damage to the exterior of the dwelling, due to wind damages, a covered peril under the policy. The policy provides insurance coverage for all the losses, damages, and expenses that Claimant suffered and incurred. The Insurer was provided with an estimate; however, the Insurer still failed to properly evaluate this claim and promptly settle although it has become reasonably clear that it should do so. The Insurer’s improper handling and delay in paying this claim has caused insurmountable damage to the Insured’s home that needs to be remedied immediately. Claimant gave the Insurer prompt and timely notice of Claimant’s claim once damage was discovered. The Insurer has not responded to the claimant’s demand. (1) Estimate for repair as well as other supporting documentation was provided to handling adjuster on March 15, 2024, (2) There are no Invoices for repairs or previous work or maintenance to the roofing to provide, and (3) No EMS documentation in claimant’s possession at this time. The Insurer’s actions amount to but are not limited to the following: 1. Not treating the policyholder with good faith claims conduct 2. Looking for ways to reduce recovery to the Insured 3. Not adjusting claims and evaluating loss properly, promptly, and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to the Insured 4. Not training, supervising, or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made, but rather placing the company’s interests before the policyholder’s interests 5. Placing the financial interest of the Insurer over that of the Insured. Florida law imposes no requirement to specify a definite cure amount to a civil remedy notice. Talet Enterprises v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 753 So. 2d 1278 (2000). To cure the defects outlines in this civil remedy notice, the Insurer needs to pay the full amount necessary to bring the Insured’s home back to its pre-loss condition. The Insurer must also pay for any statutory costs and fees to which the Insured is entitled. This includes, but is not limited to, attorney's fees and costs, IF INCURRED, pursuant to Florida Statute 627.428, plus a 2.5 multiplier in accordance with the principles of Rowe v. Patient's Compensation Fund.

Comments

User Id		Date Added		Comment
frank@campionelawpa.com		04-08-2026		Claimant withdraws this notice as the claim has been dismissed.
kmixon@gspalaw.com		03-04-2025		March 4, 2025 Via Electronic Filing Department of Financial Services Civil Remedy Notice Department 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 RE: Insured: Priscilla & Damian Quirindongo Claim No.: CFL200131284 Policy No.: CFD20027600081 Date of Loss: July 30, 2023 Our File No.: CYP.48644-BV CRN No.: 805642 Dear Sir or Madam: Cypress Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“Cypress” or “Insurer”) is in receipt of the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation (“Notice”), submitted by Frank J. Campione, Esq. on behalf of the complainant, Priscilla and Damian Quirindongo (“Insured” or “Complainant”). The Notice was marked accepted by the Department of Financial Services on February 7, 2025 and was assigned Filing Number 805642. The Notice relates to claim number CFL200131284, with an alleged loss for damages to property resulting from an alleged July 30, 2023 storm event (“Claim”). Initially, Cypress asserts the Notice fails to comply with the requirements of Florida Statutes §624.155, in that it fails to set forth the specific policy language relevant to any alleged violation. Further, the Notice fails to include specific facts or circumstances to support the vague, conclusory allegations asserted in the Notice. Notwithstanding the failure of the Notice to comply with Florida Statute §624.155, Cypress does hereby respond to the allegations of the Notice so as to avoid any presumption that may be made by lack of response, notwithstanding the clear documented facts that are contrary to the unsupported allegations asserted in the Notice. Cypress expressly denies the allegations asserted in the Notice – that may be referenced by statute or otherwise - to the extent it alleges lack of a timely response to the notice of claim, implementing proper standards in its inspections and investigation of the claim, that it did not diligently and properly respond to and evaluate the claim, or satisfy its contractual and indemnity obligations to the insured. The documented facts and communications in the claim clearly reveal that Cypress responded timely, properly advised the Insured or his representatives of the information and access for inspections to allow Cypress to allow it to timely obtain all relevant information to properly and fully evaluate the claim and its obligations under the insurance policy. As to the alleged factual basis asserted for the submission of the Notice, Cypress responds as follows: Claim Denial: This allegation is without basis and therefore denied. The Notice alleges that Cypress has wrongfully denied the claim is false as Cypress relied upon its complete investigation prior to issuing its coverage decision. Claim Delay: This allegation is without basis and therefore denied. Cypress investigated and evaluated this matter promptly and in good faith well within the statutory time frame for rendering a coverage decision. Any perceived delay would have been self-imposed considering the timing of the initial notice of the claimed loss. Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer: This allegation is without basis and therefore denied. Cypress investigated and evaluated this matter and at the time of the filing of this CRN and informed the Insured that it owed no coverage and/or indemnity obligation under the Policy. Therefore, this perceived unsatisfactory settlement offer is without any merit or support. Unfair Trade Practice: This allegation is without basis and therefore denied. The Notice fails to provide any detail of what exactly Cypress did which would have resulted in an unfair trade practice. There was no specificity other than to state that Cypress has, among other things, denied the claim and failed to issue payment and act recklessly with regard to the Insured’s rights. The Notice seems to allege that the lack of payment on the Insured’s claim somehow equates to an unfair trade practice. ALLEGED STATUTORY VIOLATIONS: 624.155(1)(b)(1): This allegation is denied. Cypress acted in good faith at all time and acted in accordance with the policy of insurance and the Florida Statutes. There exist no facts or circumstances to support this allegation in the Notice. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): This allegation is denied. Cypress has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of claims. Cypress acted in good faith at all times and acted in accordance with Florida Statutes. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation have been provided by Complainant in the Notice. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b): This allegation is denied. Cypress has not misrepresented any facts or policy provisions in any form and specifically not in regard to the coverages at issue. The policy of insurance clearly outlines coverages and exclusions and Cypress has applied these provisions. Cypress has acted in good faith at all times and acted in accordance with the policy of insurance and Florida Statutes. There exist no facts or circumstances to support this allegation in the Notice. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c): This allegation is denied. Cypress has acknowledged all communications in this claim. There exist no facts or circumstances to support this allegation in the Notice. The Complainant also asserts what Cypress must do to ‘cure’ the subject conduct referenced in the Notice, which includes general and conclusory assertions, without definition. In Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000), the Florida Supreme Court accepted and quoted the reasoning of the court below in its opinion which stated in relevant part, “Section §624.155 does not impose on the insurer the obligation to pay whatever the insured demands….Section §624.155(2)(d) would have no effect or purpose under such an interpretation.” Talat, 753 So.2d at 1282 citing Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.. 952 F.Supp. 773,777-778 (M.D. Fla. 1996). CONCLUSION/SUMMATION: The Notice fails to comply with the statutory requirements of Florida Statutes §624.155. Cypress has nevertheless fully responded herein to the conclusory allegations asserted in the Notice. Cypress has diligently and reasonably responded in the claim in an effort to bring the claim to an amicable resolution in accordance with the information provided in the claim, the inspection, and the terms of the insurance contract. It has at all times acted fairly in the administration of the claim, in compliance with the terms of the insurance policy and Florida law. Cypress has attempted to fully and adequately respond to each of the Complainant’s allegations in the Notice filed with the Department. Should the Department have any questions or further inquiry with respect to this matter, please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, GROELLE & SALMON, P.A. /s/ Nestor Marante Nestor A. Marante For the Firm

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