Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     805698
Filing Accepted:  2/7/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
SOTO   First Name   LOURDES
Street Address * 7384 HIGH LAKE DRIVE
City, State Zip * ORLANDO, FL 32818
Email Address * LSOTO110@AOL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   SOTO   First Name   LOURDES
Policy # * 0768541028 Claim #* 7005429407-1-1
Attorney
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
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE
NAIC Company Code 21709
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* NICHOLAS MCKENNA, CASSIE MCLIN, AND ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL FROM, OR AGENT OF, TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE WHO WAS INVOLVED IN THE CLAIM.
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
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 : Failing to provide the Insured with the full benefits awarded under the contract of insurance in a t
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
* 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.
* 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.

Truck Insurance Exchange (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) shifting the burden of investigating the loss onto the Insured; and 9) artificially inflating the Insured's recoverable depreciation. On or about September 29, 2022, while the subject policy was in full force and effect, the insured property suffered a loss caused by Hurricane Ian. The areas impacted include but are not limited to the roofing system, family room, garage, kitchen, pantry, master bedroom, master bathroom, pool area and enclosure, three guest rooms and closets, hallway and hall closet, living room, and general exterior. The Insured timely submitted a claim to the Insurer for damages caused by Hurricane Ian and ensuing wind and water damage therefrom. Thereafter, the Insurer assigned claim number 7005429407-1 to the loss and sent a field adjuster to inspect the property. The Insurer then notified the Insured, in a coverage determination letter dated January 11, 2023, that it was extending partial coverage for the loss. However, the Insurer wrongfully determined that it would only require $63,388.06 to restore the insured property to its pre-loss condition. The Insurer subtracted depreciation and the applicable deductible of $5,040.00, which resulted in a $25,711.74 net payment to the Insured. The Insurer's lowball estimate is that of a classic under scope and under value of the claim. Given the vastly underestimated cost of repairs and 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 $195,019.15 in covered damage to the dwelling, $8,788.51 in covered damage to contents, and $9,126.37 in damage to other structures. Additionally, the Insured hired restoration, roof, and window experts to assess the damage caused by Hurricane Ian to these areas. The window estimate amounted to $29,857.00 to repair the windows alone. The restoration experts prepared an estimate detailing $1,200.00 for tarping to be done to the roof. The foregoing estimates, photographs, and a letter of representation from the public adjuster were sent to the Insurer. 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 partial denial. The Insurer denied coverage for the remaining damage sustained to the roof based on the rationale that the damage was a result of wear and tear. However, the Insurer never retained a professional engineer to ascertain the cause and scope of this damage. Although the Insurer and Insured are in dispute about how the damage was sustained, 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. Moreover, upon information and belief, the Insurer wrongfully underscoped for the Insured's roof because it knows or should have known that the Insured needs a new roof in order to comply with the Florida Building Code. Rather than the Insurer pay for a roof replacement consistent with all laws and ordinances, the Insurer contends the roof is repairable which is not true. All repairs to the roofing system must be done in accordance with applicable Florida Building Codes which require all repairs be done consistent with the manufacturer's specifications and warranties which this Insurer clearly did not account for. The Insurer unreasonably inflated the amount of recoverable depreciation in this case, thereby artificially lowering the Insured's recoverable value, to the detriment of the Insured. The Insurer withheld almost 50 percent of the net claim determined by the Insurer as recoverable depreciation. The Insurer has attempted to gain an unreasonable financial benefit by inflating the recoverable depreciation because it knows that it is unlikely, or at least less likely, that the Insured can actually complete the repairs which is a condition precedent to the recovery of the depreciation withheld under the claim. In other words, the Insurer pays an unreasonable amount less on the front end of a claim, which makes it more difficult for the Insured to restore the property to its pre-loss condition and recover the withheld depreciation from the Insurer. Only after Insured pays to restore the property out of pocket, if he can, will the Insurer fully pay its Insured under the policy. Withholding an inflated amount of depreciation is a creative, sneaky, and deceptive practice that is employed to limit the amount the Insurer will ever have to pay out on a claim and make the homeowner a self-insured. The Insurer is hoping that the Insured is unaware of her right to recover the recoverable depreciation so that it can pay Insured less than it is obligated. The Insurer is shifting the cost and the burden of investigating the loss onto the Insured. The Insurer has the duty to inspect the loss and provide the Insured with the full benefits under the policy. The Insurer has breached that duty by not providing the Insured with the full value of the loss and caused the Insured to take on the burden of investigating the loss. Additionally, although there was interior water damage the adjuster did not use a water meter. A water meter can be purchased online from Amazon for around $40 before tax. The Insurer could purchase a water meter and assess thousands of properties with one meter. Instead, the Insurer would rather place its financial interests over those of the Insured by failing to provide the adjuster with the necessary tools to correctly inspect the loss. As a result of the inadequate investigation and surrounding circumstances it is apparent that Insurer significantly underestimated the scope of the loss to the Insured's property. Insurer and its adjuster have colluded to misrepresent the true scope of damages to the insured property and the true replacement costs of the damages. This is an underhanded attempt to place the financial interest of Insurer over those of the Insured, to delay the Insured's claim, and to delay the Insured in restoring her property to its pre-loss condition. 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 determined that it would only require $63,388.06 to restore the insured property to its pre-loss condition. 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 delay 2. Not treating the Insured with good faith claims conduct 3. Looking for way to reduce recovery to the Insured 4. Looking for ways to deny recovery to the Insured 5. Not adjusting claims and evaluating loss properly, promptly and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to the Insured 6. 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 7. Placing the financial interest of the Insurer over that of the health and safety of the Insured 8. Failing to provide an estimate that complies with the Florida Building Codes 9. Shifting the burden of investigating onto the Insured 10. Conducting inadequate investigations 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: Truck Insurance Exchange 6301 Owensmouth Avenue Woodland Hills, CA 91367 myclaim@farmersinsurance.com
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
ahart@chartwelllaw.com 03-24-2025 ALINA HART, ESQUIRE ahart@chartwelllaw.com Reply To: Miami Office 100 SE 2nd Street Suite 2150 Miami, FL 33131-5322 Phone: (305) 372-9044 Facsimile: (305) 372-5044 March 24, 2025 VIA DFS FILING AND E-MAIL: assist@krapflegal.com; badfaith@krapflegal.com Grant Krapf, Esq. Krapf Legal, PA 2790 Sunset Point Road Clearwater, FL 33759 Re: Complainant: Lourdes Soto Insured: Lourdes Soto Insurer: Truck Insurance Exchange DFS Filing Number: 805698 Filing Accepted Date: February 7, 2025 Policy Number: 76854-10-28 Claim Number: 7005429407-1 Date of Loss: September 29, 2022 To Whom It May Concern: This firm represents Truck Insurance Exchange (hereinafter “Truck”) in connection with a claim submitted by Lourdes Soto (hereinafter the “Complainant”) following a purported loss occurring on or about September 29, 2022, allegedly as a result of Hurricane Ian. This correspondence shall serve as a formal response by Truck to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation (“CRN”), filing number 805698, recently submitted on behalf of the Complainant and associated with Policy number 76854-10-28. Of note is that the filing represents the fourth CRN filing by said Complainant restating duplicative, unfounded and erroneous allegations already addressed under CRN filings 703920, 761848 and 804947. Truck denies each and every allegation brought forth in the CRN and denies any wrongdoing in the handling of this matter. Below we include a detailed factual history of the claim hanzq23dling and actions by Truck, which clearly reveal Truck acted properly in responding to the claim and establishes that Truck is in compliance with both its contractual and legal obligations. Truck would further state the Complainant’s CRN is defective as it fails to comply with the strict governing requirements contained within Florida Statute Section 624.155. Namely, the statute requires that a CRN shall “state with specificity . . . [t]he facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.” Fla. Stat. § 624.155(3)(b)2. Under Florida law, a civil remedy notice must state the facts and circumstances that give rise to an alleged violation with such specificity sufficient to allow an insurer to cure any alleged violation within the sixty (60) day statutory period. See Lane v. Westfield Insurance Company, 862 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). The Complainant’s CRN is deficient as the limited facts and circumstances set forth therein are false, incomplete, and misleading, as well as insufficient to establish a violation of any statute or policy provision. The referenced statutes and code sections; however, do not appear to be pertinent to the subject claim, and the CRN fails to specify each statutes’ relative applicability to same. Further, the CRN does not contain specify facts addressing and supporting each alleged statutory violation against Truck, but rather sets forth only stock, conclusory allegations of purported bad faith. Complainant’s CRN is frivolous and without any foundation in fact, as it omits the most important piece of information, namely, that this matter was been subject to the appraisal process and resolved therein. The CRN is effectively a copy of the prior CRN filed for this same Complainant under filing number 703920, 761848 and 804947 without any new or substantive information. For these reasons alone, the CRN is defective on its face. In light of the incomplete, misleading, repetitive and false allegations set forth in the CRN, Truck hereby provides the Department of Financial Services with the following facts of the claim that, in and of themselves, disprove all of the allegations brought forth in the CRN. Truck hereby asserts that all actions taken in the handling of this claim were done in good faith for the purpose of a fair and timely disposition of this matter. CLAIM FACTS Policy 76854-10-28, underwritten by Truck Insurance Exchange (“TIE”), with effective dates December 10, 2021 through December 10, 2022, was issued to Lourdes Soto for the property located at 7384 High Lake Drive, Orlando, FL 32818. The subject policy contains the following coverages: Coverage A- Dwelling $252,000.00; Coverage B- Separate Structures $5,040.00; Coverage C - Personal Property $126,000.00; Coverage D - Loss of Use $25,200.00. Applicable $5,040.00 hurricane deductible. The loss was first reported to TIE on or about December 15, 2022 as hurricane damage to the roof, interior and exterior with a purported date of loss of September 29, 2022. TIE received email correspondence from Five Star Claims Adjusting on behalf of the insured providing a public adjuster agreement. TIE issued correspondence to the insured, acknowledging receipt of the claim, enclosing a Homeowner Claims Bill of Rights On or about December 30, 2022, TIE received correspondence from JD Restorations enclosing a purported Assignment of Benefits and Direct Payment Authorization for water mitigation services in the amount of $18,739.43 On or about January 3, 2023, TIE received correspondence from JD Restorations enclosing a purported Assignment of Benefits and Direct Payment Authorization for tarping services in the amount of $4,680.00. On or about January 5, 2023, TIE attempted an inspection of the property but was unable to complete same due to rain. On the same day, TIE sent correspondences to the Public Adjuster and JD Restorations acknowledging the AOB for water mitigation and Public Adjuster Letter of Representation. On or about January 11, 2023, TIE sent correspondence to JD Restorations acknowledging the AOB tarping noting it was not received within three business days of signing. A separate correspondence was also sent to JD enclosing payment in the amount of $2,967.78 for tarping and the draft was cashed on January 18, 2023. On or about January 11, 2023, TIE’s representative conducted an initial inspection of the insured’s property. During the inspection, the inspector photographed and scoped all areas reportedly damaged by this loss. On or about January 11, 2023, TIE issued a coverage determination letter to the insured advising that the inspection revealed covered and non-covered physical damage related to the storm. Per the estimate, TIE afforded coverage for repairs to the dwelling roof, shed roof, windows, fencing, garage, living room, kitchen/pantry, family room, bedroom 2 and 3, guest bedroom, guest bathroom, master bedroom, and master bathroom in the net amount of $22,895.32 for dwelling and $2,816.42 for other structures for a total of $25,711.74. Accordingly, payment was issued to Five Star of Central Florida, Inc. in the amount of $25,711.74 and the draft was cashed January 23, 2023. On or about January 20, 2023, TIE issued correspondence to JD Restorations enclosing payment in the negotiated and agreed upon amount of $10,138.12 for water mitigation services as well as $1,200 for the supplement requested to detach and reset the tarping during TIE’s inspection. Said drafts in the amount $10,138.12 and $1,200.00 were both cashed January 25, 2023. On January 24, 2023, TIE received email correspondence from the Public Adjuster enclosing a sworn proof of loss in the amount of $203,300.15. TIE formally acknowledged the sworn proof of loss on the same day confirming its coverage decision. On or about January 30, 2023, TIE issued correspondence to the named insured issuing payment to Mold Man Details for $2,150.00 for their inspection and mold sampling. Said draft in the amount of $2,150.00 was cashed on April 17, 2023. The Civil Remedy Notice (hereinafter “CRN”) was filed on July 7, 2023 (Filing Number – 703920) and named Lourdes Soto as the Complainant and Insured. TIE formally and timely responded to the CRN. On July 27, 2023, TIE received an appraisal demand from the insured’s attorney. TIE acknowledged the correspondence the same day and selected an appraiser in accordance with the terms of the policy. On August 25, 2023, TIE issued correspondence to the insured’s attorney providing an update regarding the appraisal process. On October 18, 2023, TIE issued correspondence to the insured’s attorney providing an update regarding the appraisal process. On December 14, 2023, TIE issued correspondence to the insured’s attorney providing an update regarding the appraisal process. Specifically, TIE advised their appraiser continues to follow up with your appraiser's position / estimate and that TIE’s appraiser has shared their position to the insured’s appraiser to not hold up the appraisal process. On February 7, 2024, TIE issued correspondence to the insured’s attorney providing an update regarding the appraisal process. On March 6, 2024, TIE issued correspondence to the insured’s attorney providing an update regarding the appraisal process. On April 4, 2024, TIE issued correspondence to the insured’s attorney providing an update regarding the appraisal process. On April 30, 2024, TIE issued correspondence to the insured’s attorney providing an update regarding the appraisal process. On May 6, 2024, the appraiser executed the appraisal award. On May 23, 2024, TIE issued correspondence to the insured's attorney providing payment pursuant to the appraisal award in the amount of $48,565.46 to Five Star of Central Florida Inc., & Krapf Legal PA & Lourdes Soto & Security National. A second Civil Remedy Notice (hereinafter “CRN”) was filed on May 28, 2024 (Filing Number – 761848) and named Lourdes Soto as the Complainant and Insured. TIE formally and timely responded to the CRN. On June 18, 2024, TIE received a request to reissue the appraisal award draft with new mortgage company, PNC Bank. Accordingly, said draft in the amount of $48,565.46 was reissued and cashed on July 25, 2024. A third Civil Remedy Notice (hereinafter “CRN”) was filed on February 4, 2025 (Filing Number – 804947) and named Lourdes Soto as the Complainant and Insured. TIE formally and timely responded to the CRN. On February 7, 2025, a mere three days later, this fourth CRN was received. Complainant has filed a fourth CRN with duplicative, redundant allegations that are categorically false and not based in fact. As demonstrated by the narrative above, Truck has been engaging in a timely, thorough, and good faith evaluation of this claim. As such, Truck acted diligently in the handling of the underlying claim at all times. Truck asserts that it thoroughly investigated the claim, acted diligently and in good faith in the evaluation and handling of the underlying claim, and complied at all times with the provisions of the Policy and applicable Florida Statutes. ALLEGED REASON FOR NOTICE: The Complainant alleges ten (10) reasons for notice in the CRN. However, no specific facts or circumstances are provided to support these allegations. The CRN is simply a recitation of general, stock allegations of bad faith conduct. Notwithstanding, Truck denies each and every allegation individually as follows: Unfair Trade Practice: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. The Complainant submits no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. At no time did TIE, its agents, or its employees employ any unfair trade practice during the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. Not Treating the Insured With Good Faith Claims Conduct: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. The Complainant submits no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. At no time did TIE, its agents, or its employees fail to treat the Policyholder with good faith claims conduct. Looking For Ways To Deny Full Recovery To The Insured: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. The Complainant submits no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. At no time did TIE, its agents, or its employees look for ways to deny full recovery to the claimant. Looking For Ways To Delay Full Recovery To The Insured: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. The Complainant submits no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. At no time did TIE, its agents, or its employees employ look for way to delay a full recovery to the claimant. Failing To Properly Investigate the Insured’s Loss: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. The Complainant submits no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. At no time did TIE, its agents, or its employees fail to provide the insureds with the full benefits awarded to him under the contract of insurance. TIE thoroughly investigated the claim, submitted to the appraisal process per demand of the insured, and paid an appraisal award. Failing To Provide the Insured with the Full Benefits Awarded under the Contract: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. The Complainant submits no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. At no time did TIE, its agents, or its employees fail to provide the insureds with the full benefits awarded to him under the contract of insurance. TIE thoroughly investigated the claim, submitted to the appraisal process per demand of the insured, and paid an appraisal award. Not Training, Supervising, Or Managing Adjusters Properly So That Prompt and Full Payments Are Made: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. The Complainant submits no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. At no time did TIE, its agents, or its employees fail to train, supervise, or manage adjusters properly. Not Adjusting Claims and Evaluating Loss Properly: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. The Complainant submits no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. At no time did TIE, its agents, or its employees fail to adjust and evaluate the loss properly. Shifting the Burden of Insuring the Loss to the Insured: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. The Complainant submits no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. At no time did TIE, its agents, or its employees shift the burden of insuring the loss to claimant. TIE thoroughly investigated the claim, submitted to the appraisal process per demand of the insured, and paid an appraisal award. Failing to Implement Proper Standards for the Adjustment and Investigation of Claims: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. The Complainant submits no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. At no time did TIE, its agents, or its employees fail to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims. TIE thoroughly investigated the claim, submitted to the appraisal process per demand of the insured, and paid an appraisal award and the payment was accepted and cashed. ALLEGED STATUTORY VIOLATIONS The Complainant further alleges three (3) statutory violations in the CRN. Again, the CRN is simply a recitation of general, stock allegations of bad faith conduct that is not specifically alleged or described. Furthermore, they are misleading and unsubstantiated. Notwithstanding, Truck denies each and every allegation of statutory violation individually as follows: 624.155(1)(b)(1): Denied. TIE has not failed to attempt to settle this claim in good faith and has always acted fairly and honestly towards the Complainant. As shown in the above factual summary, the conduct of TIE following its receipt of the first notice of the loss has complied with all aspects of Florida law. TIE timely inspected the loss and informed the Complainant of the coverage determination. Further, TIE submitted to the appraisal process per demand of the insured and paid an appraisal award. Moreover, the Complainant has submitted no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. TIE asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligation set forth in the subject insurance policy. 624.155(1)(b)(3): Denied. The Complainant fails to submit any facts or circumstances supporting this alleged violation. In fact, the Complainant fails to identify the purported coverage sections under which TIE purportedly sought to influence settlement by way of its alleged failure to promptly settle claims under another coverage section. As demonstrated in the detailed factual summary above, the conduct of TIE following its receipt of the first notice of the loss has complied with all aspects of Florida law. TIE asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligation set forth in the subject insurance Policy. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Denied. This allegation is without basis. TIE has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of claims at all times. The aforementioned facts demonstrate that TIE employed proper and customary claims practices in the investigation and adjustment of this claim, and in strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Furthermore, the Complainants submitted no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE INSURANCE POLICY Truck denies violating any Policy provisions or duties set forth in the Policy and further asserts compliance with the Policy and all of its provisions and endorsements. Truck handled the Complainant’s claim with diligence and at all times acted fairly in administration of this claim and treated the Complainant with honesty and with due regard for their interests. All actions by Truck were done in compliance with the Policy. Complainant invoked the appraisal clause of the subject policy, and the claim was submitted to an appraiser in accordance the terms of the policy and pertinent appraisal provision. The appraisal award was issued and accepted by Complainant, and there are no further disputed matters regarding this claim. TRUCK DENIES ALL ALLEGATIONS IN THE CRN Truck hereby denies any and all allegations of bad faith by the Complainant, and states that it has, at all times, handled and adjusted the Complainant’s claim with utmost good faith. Any and all allegations of bad faith contained within the CRN are expressly rejected by Truck. As stated above, the CRN is simply a recitation of general, stock allegations of bad faith conduct and almost an identical duplicate of three prior CRN filings. The CRN is therefore non-compliant with Florida Statute Section 624.155(3), which requires that a civil remedy notice of insurer violation “state with specificity”, inter alia, the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation and the “specific” language of the subject insurance policy that is relevant to any alleged violation(s). The Complainant wholly fails to provide any specific facts or circumstances giving rise to the alleged violations in the CRN, and instead simply allege a litany of non-specific, boilerplate allegations against Truck as purported acts of bad faith. Moreover, there is not a single reference in the CRN to any specific policy language that the Complainant alleges as relevant to the allegations of bad faith. Failure to provide such specific reference to policy language is direct and clear noncompliance with the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 624.155, and renders the CRN deficient on its face, as to form and substance. Accordingly, the CRN does not provide the contemplated and mandated notice of alleged bad faith required as a condition precedent to any civil claim for bad faith pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 624.155. For these reasons, the CRN is denied and rejected. Additionally, as described in detail above, the facts alleged in the CRN are contrary to the actual facts underlying the subject claim. Truck further denies any and all other allegations not specifically addressed in this response related to the above-referenced Civil Remedy Notice. There has been no violation of the referenced statutory sections by Truck. By responding to the Civil Remedy Notice filed by the Complainant, Truck neither waives nor abandons but expressly reserves any and all rights, claims and defenses it has or may have under the terms and conditions of the Policy and applicable Florida law. Herein, Truck has attempted to fully and adequately respond to the allegations alleged in the CRN. Should the Florida Department of Financial Services have any questions or further inquiry with respect to this matter, please contact the undersigned. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, CHARTWELL LAW, LLP. By:_/s/ Alina Hart Alina Hart, Esquire Christopher Cooper, Esquire
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