Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     805845
Filing Accepted:  2/8/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
HUNTER   First Name   DAVID
Street Address * 1731 GATEWAY LANE
City, State Zip * KISSIMMEE, FL 34746
Email Address * PLEADINGS@HGWLEGAL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   HUNTER   First Name   DAVID
Policy # * 1501-2004-5734 Claim #* FL21-0134700-Q721
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* WOODWARD First Name * HEW Initial
Street Address* PO BOX 140312
City, State Zip* ORLANDO , FLORIDA 32814
Email Address * HEW@HGWLEGAL.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10861
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* STEPHEN GOLDSMITH AND TUNISIA ABBAN
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Cancellation
Non-renewal
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.
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)(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.

THE SUBJECT INSURANCE POLICY PROVIDES COVERAGE FOR DIRECT PHYSICAL LOSS TO DAVID HUNTER’S PROPERTY. MR. HUNTER SUBMITTED A CLAIM FOR WINDSTORM AND ASSOCIATED WATER DAMAGE TO ITS INSURED PROPERTY THAT OCCURRED DURING THE EFFECTIVE POLICY PERIOD. THE LOSS IS NOT EXCLUDED UNDER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE POLICY. THE INSURER HAS FAILED TO ISSUE PAYMENT PURSUANT TO THE LOSS SETTLEMENT PROVISIONS OF THE POLICY. THE FOLLOWING COVERAGES AND POLICY LANGUAGE ARE RELEVANT: COVERAGE A - DWELLING $414,363 COVERAGE D - LOSS OF USE $41,437 DWELLING REPLACEMENT COST Y LAW AND ORDINANCE $103,591 HOMEOWNER 3 - SPECIAL FORM MOLD/ FUNGI $10,000 INCLUDED LIBERALIZATION CLAUSE “LOSS SETTLEMENT…REPLACEMENT COST…WE WILL PAY THE COST TO REPAIR OR REPLACE, WITHOUT DEDUCTION FOR DEPRECIATION” ALL OF THE PROVISIONS IN THE SUBJECT INSURANCE POLICY ARE DICTATED BY THE FOLLOWING FLORIDA STATUTES: § 627.4025 (“RESIDENTIAL COVERAGE AND HURRICANE COVERAGE DEFINED”); § 627.404 (“INSURABLE INTEREST, PERSONAL INSURANCE”); § 627.405 (“INSURABLE INTEREST”); § 627.4091 (“SPECIFIC REASONS FOR DENIAL, CANCELLATION, OR NONRENEWAL”); § 627.40951 (“STANDARD PERSONAL LINES RESIDENTIAL INSURANCE POLICY”); § 627.410 (“FILING, APPROVAL OF FORMS”); § 627.412 (“STANDARD PROVISIONS, IN GENERAL”); § 627.413 (“CONTENTS OF POLICIES, IN GENERAL”); § IDENTIFICATION”); § 627.4131 (“TELEPHONE NUMBER REQUIRED”); § 627.4133 (“NOTICE OF CANCELLATION, NONRENEWAL, OR RENEWAL PREMIUM”); § 627.4135 (“CASUALTY INSURANCE CONTRACTS SUBJECT TO GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR INSURANCE CONTRACTS”); § 627.4143 (“OUTLINE OF COVERAGE”); § 627.4145 (“READABLE LANGUAGE IN INSURANCE POLICIES”); § 627.418 (“VALIDITY OF NONCOMPLYING CONTRACTS”); § 627.419 (“CONSTRUCTION OF POLICIES”); § 627.420 (“BINDERS”); § 627.421 (“DELIVERY OF POLICY”); § 627.425 (“FORMS FOR PROOF OF LOSS TO BE FURNISHED”); § 627.426 (“CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION”); § 627.4265 (“PAYMENT OF SETTLEMENT”); § 627.428 (“ATTORNEY'S FEE”); § 627.442 (“INSURANCE CONTRACTS”); § 627.7011 (“HOMEOWNERS' POLICIES, OFFER OF REPLACEMENT COST COVERAGE AND LAW AND ORDINANCE COVERAGE”); § 627.7015 (“ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURE FOR RESOLUTION OF DISPUTED PROPERTY INSURANCE CLAIMS”); § 627.7016 (“INSURER CONTRACTS WITH BUILDING CONTRACTORS”); § 627.7019 (“STANDARDIZATION OF REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO INSURERS AFTER NATURAL DISASTERS”); § 627.702 (“VALUED POLICY LAW”); § 627.7061 (“COVERAGE INQUIRIES”); § 627.707 (“STANDARDS FOR INVESTIGATION OF SINKHOLE CLAIMS BY INSURERS. NONRENEWALS”); § 627.7072 (“TESTING STANDARDS FOR SINKHOLES”); § 627.7073 (“SINKHOLE REPORTS”); § 627.712 (“RESIDENTIAL WINDSTORM COVERAGE REQUIRED, AVAILABILITY OF EXCLUSIONS FOR WINDSTORM OR CONTENTS”).
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY (“UNIVERSAL” OR “INSURER”) BREACHED ITS STATUTORY AND CONTRACTUAL DUTIES DURING ITS ADJUSTMENT AND LITIGATION OF THE INSURANCE CLAIM REPORTED BY DAVID HUNTER (THE “INSURED” OR “INSUREDS”) IN CONNECTION WITH SEVERE DAMAGE TO A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOCATED AT 1731 GATEWAY LANE, KISSIMMEE, FLORIDA 34746 ("DWELLING") CAUSED BY WINDSTORM AND WATER INTRUSION OCCURRING ON OR ABOUT APRIL 11, 2021 (“LOSS”). RATHER THAN ADJUSTING THE CLAIM IN GOOD FAITH, UNIVERSAL’S INDEPENDENT ADJUSTING FIRM UNILATERALLY REDUCED THEIR FIELD ADJUSTER'S ESTIMATE AND REDACTED HIS PHOTOGRAPHS, WITHOUT THE FIELD ADJUSTER'S KNOWLEDGE. THE REVISED ESTIMATE, AND LATER PHOTOGRAPHS, WERE THEN SENT BY UNIVERSAL TO MR. HUNTER WITHOUT THE FIELD ADJUSTER'S KNOWLEDGE. THIS NOT ONLY RESULTED IN AN UNDERVALUATION OF THE CLAIM, BUT ALSO MISREPRESENTED THE FIELD ADJUSTER’S FINDINGS AND MISLED MR. HUNTER. DESPITE CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT THE CLAIMED DAMAGES WERE COVERED BY THE SUBJECT INSURANCE POLICY, UNIVERSAL UNDERTOOK AN EXTENDED ADJUSTMENT PROCESS IN BAD FAITH, AND ULTIMATELY CANCELED OR NON-RENEWED THE POLICY, RESULTING IN SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE AND DISTRESS AS THE INSURED WAS UNABLE TO REPAIR THE PROPERTY OR PURCHASE AN ANOTHER POLICY WHILE THE CLAIM WAS PENDING. AFTER UNIVERSAL DENIED THE CLAIM, THE INSURED WAS FORCED TO ENGAGE AN ATTORNEY. AFTER LITIGATION WAS COMMENCED, UNIVERSAL ASSERTED NUMEROUS BASELESS GROUNDS FOR DENYING COVERAGE. DEFENDANT SERVED AN ANSWER WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, TOGETHER WITH A RESPONSE TO MR. HUNTER’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS DENYING BASIC AND INDISPUTABLE FACTS. WITHOUT ANY FACTUAL BASIS WHATSOEVER, UNIVERSAL ALLEGED THAT THE INSURED VIOLATED OTHER UNSPECIFIED CONDITIONS IN THE INSURANCE CONTRACT. FOR EXAMPLE, UNIVERSAL DENIED THAT THE INSURED HELD AN INSURABLE INTEREST IN THE DWELLING, SUSTAINED A LOSS WHICH TRIGGERED COVERAGE, AND COMPLIED WITH POLICY CONDITIONS. IT ALSO DENIED THAT A CLAIM WAS PROPERLY SUBMITTED, THAT MR. HUNTER COOPERATED WITH UNIVERSAL’S INVESTIGATION OF THE CLAIM, AND THAT THE INSURANCE POLICY PROVIDED THE “ALL RISK” AND “REPLACEMENT COST VALUE” COVERAGE. UNIVERSAL LITIGATED THE CLAIM FOR THREE (3) YEARS AND MADE NO REASONABLE SETTLEMENT OFFERS. DESPITE THE FACT THAT AFTER THE INSURED FILED THIS LAWSUIT, CONDUCTED DISCOVERY, AND RETAINED EXPERT WITNESSES, UNIVERSAL REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS. TO PUNISH MR. HUNTER FOR FILING THE LAWSUIT, INSTEAD, UNIVERSAL CANCELED AND/OR NON-RENEWED THE SUBJECT INSURANCE POLICY ON OR ABOUT JULY 25, 2023. FROM JANUARY 13, 2025 THROUGH JANUARY 21, 2025, MR. HUNTER’S CLAIM WAS TRIED BEFORE A JURY. THE JURY RENDERED A VERDICT IN FAVOR OF MR. HUNTER ON JANUARY 21, 2025. THE JURY CALCULATED ACTUAL CASH VALUE (“ACV”) DAMAGES IN THE AMOUNT OF $200,000, AND REPLACEMENT COST VALUE (“RCV”) DAMAGES IN THE AMOUNT OF $455,800. UNIVERSAL VIOLATED THE MINIMUM STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS OF ALL INSURERS TO PROVIDE PAYMENT OF ALL UNDISPUTED AMOUNTS DUE AND OWING UNDER THE SUBJECT INSURANCE POLICY IN A TIMELY MANNER. UNIVERSAL KNEW AND/OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT INSURANCE MONIES WERE DUE AND OWING, HOWEVER, UNIVERSAL HAS NOT MADE ANY PAYMENTS TO THE INSURED. UNIVERSAL’S REFUSAL TO PAY INSURANCE BENEFITS IS AN INTENTIONAL ATTEMPT TO “LOW BALL” THE INSURED’ DAMAGES. UNIVERSAL HAS ACTED IMPROPERLY AND IN BAD FAITH BY IGNORING THE INSURED’ PUBLIC ADJUSTER’S REPAIR ESTIMATE WITHOUT CONDUCTING A FAIR AND REASONABLE INVESTIGATION. IT ALSO ACTED IMPROPERLY AND IN BAD FAITH WHEN IT IGNORED THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE INSURANCE POLICY. IN SUM, UNIVERSAL DID NOT INVESTIGATE AND FAIRLY OR REASONABLY INTERPRET THE FACTS SURROUNDING THIS CLAIM. UNIVERSAL HAS FAILED TO ISSUE PAYMENT OF THE UNDISPUTED PORTION OF THE INSURED PROPERTY DAMAGE CLAIM WITHIN 90-DAYS, DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT HAD ALL INFORMATION NECESSARY TO CALCULATE THE ISSUE PAYMENT FOR THE UNDISPUTED PORTION OF THE CLAIM. UNIVERSAL FAILED TO PROMPTLY PAY THE FULL BENEFITS OWED TO THE POLICYHOLDER, THE REASONS FOR THIS MAY BE ATTRIBUTED TO IMPROPER TRAINING, SUPERVISION, AND/OR FAILURE OF ADJUSTERS AND CLAIMS SUPERVISORS TO PROMPTLY AND FAIRLY INVESTIGATE, ADJUST AND PAY FULL BENEFITS AVAILABLE TO ALL BENEFICIARIES. THE INSURER FAILED TO ADOPT PROPER STANDARDS OF INVESTIGATION AND ADJUSTMENT OF LOSSES, OR IS OTHERWISE NOT IMPLEMENTING THOSE STANDARDS BECAUSE FULL PAYMENT AND PROMPT PAYMENT FOR THE LOSS IS NOT OCCURRING. UNIVERSAL HAS FAILED TO CREATE AND IMPLEMENT ADEQUATE GUIDELINES FOR PROPER INVESTIGATION TO EVALUATE CLAIMS HANDLING AND FOR TRAINING AND SUPERVISION OF EMPLOYEES, RESULTING IN STATUTORY VIOLATIONS AS SET FORTH ABOVE. UNIVERSAL HAS FAILED AND/OR REFUSED TO THOROUGHLY, ACCURATELY, AND COMPLETELY INVESTIGATE AND EVALUATE THE INSURED’ INSURANCE CLAIM AND DAMAGES. UNIVERSAL HAS FAILED AND/OR REFUSED TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND ACT PROMPTLY UPON COMMUNICATION FROM ITS INSURED (OR HER REPRESENTATIVE) WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE CLAIMS. UNIVERSAL HAS FAILED TO PROMPTLY SETTLE THE INSURED’ INSURANCE CLAIMS WHEN THE OBLIGATION TO SETTLE THESE CLAIMS HAD BECOME REASONABLY CLEAR, UNDER AT LEAST ONE PORTION OF THE INSURANCE POLICY’S COVERAGES, IN ORDER TO INFLUENCE THE SETTLEMENTS UNDER OTHER PORTIONS OF THE INSURANCE POLICY COVERAGE. TO DATE, NOTWITHSTANDING THE INSURED’ PLEAS OTHERWISE, UNIVERSAL HAS CONTINUED TO REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE ITS OBLIGATION TO TENDER ALL INSURANCE MONIES DUE AND OWING THE INSURED, OR ASSIST THE INSURED IN THE MITIGATION OF HER DAMAGES. THE INSURED WAS THEN, AND IS STILL, FORCED TO EXPEND MONIES TO SUBMIT THE INSURANCE CLAIM, PAY ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS, RETAIN EXPERTS AND ADJUSTERS TO INVESTIGATE THE FULL EXTENT AND NATURE OF HER LOSS, AND TO FORCE UNIVERSAL TO HONOR ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE INSURANCE POLICY AND PAY ALL THE INSURANCE PROCEEDS DUE AND OWING THE INSURED. IN FLORIDA THE WORK OF ADJUSTING INSURANCE CLAIMS ENGAGES THE PUBLIC TRUST. UNIVERSAL BREACHED ITS STATUTORY AND CONTRACTUAL DUTIES AS WELL AS THIS TRUST. TO CURE THE DEFECTS OUTLINED IN THIS CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE, UNIVERSAL MUST: (1) CREATE AND IMPLEMENT ADEQUATE GUIDELINES FOR PROPER INVESTIGATION AND EVALUATION AS TO CLAIMS HANDLING AND FOR THE TRAINING AND SUPERVISION OF EMPLOYEES WHICH WILL AVOID FUTURE STATUTORY VIOLATIONS AS SET FORTH ABOVE TO AVOID THIS FROM OCCURRING IN THE FUTURE. (2) CREATE AND IMPLEMENT ADEQUATE GUIDELINES FOR THE PROPER INVESTIGATION AND EVALUATION OF WINDSTORM, WIND, RAIN AND WATER INTRUSION CLAIMS, AND FOR THE TRAINING AND SUPERVISION OF EMPLOYEES WITH REGARD TO THESE CLAIMS TO ENSURE THAT UNIVERSAL’ CLAIMS HANDLING PROCEDURES WITH REGARD TO THESE TYPES OF LOSSES ARE ADEQUATE TO STOP UNFAIR AND WRONGFUL TREATMENT OF INSURED. (3) ASSIST THE INSUREDS IN MITIGATING DAMAGES. (4) PROMPTLY AND TIMELY RESPOND TO REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION BY THE INSUREDS OR THE INSUREDS’ PUBLIC ADJUSTER. (5) ACT FAIRLY AND HONESTLY TOWARDS THE INSUREDS AND WITH DUE REGARD FOR HER INTERESTS IN ATTEMPTING TO SETTLE THE INSURED’ CLAIM. (6) IMMEDIATELY TENDER ALL INSURANCE MONIES DUE AND OWING THE INSUREDS. (7) ACKNOWLEDGE IN WRITING TO THE INSURED THAT UNIVERSAL’ HANDLING OF THIS CLAIM IS AND WAS INSUFFICIENT TO PLACE THE INSUREDS BACK INTO THEIR PRE-LOSS CONDITION. (8) TAKE ANY OTHER REASONABLE AND NECESSARY MEASURES TO PLACE THE INSUREDS BACK INTO HER PRE-LOSS CONDITION. (9) ACKNOWLEDGE, IN WRITING, ITS SINCERE APOLOGY TO THE INSURED FOR ITS WRONGFUL CLAIMS HANDLING PRACTICES IN THE ADJUSTMENT OF THIS CLAIM. (10) IMMEDIATELY PAY ALL UNDISPUTED AMOUNTS CLAIMED PLUS INTEREST (BUT SUBTRACT PRIOR PAYMENTS AND DEDUCTIBLE) WHICH AMOUNT(S) IS/ARE EXCLUSIVE ANY CLAIMS FOR FEES, COSTS, BAD FAITH OR EXTRA-CONTRACTUAL DAMAGES.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
jr0405@universalproperty.com 03-28-2025 March 28, 2025 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING Florida Department of Financial Services Bureau of Consumer Assistance Civil Remedy Section 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0322 Re: DFS File No.: 805843 Filing Date: 2/8/2025 Complainant: David Hunter Insureds: David Hunter Policy No.: 1501-2004-5734 Claim No.: FL21-0134700-Q721 Re: DFS File No.: 805844 Filing Date: 2/8/2025 Re: DFS File No.: 805845 Filing Date: 2/8/2025 Dear Sir/Madam: Please allow this to serve as Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company’s (“Universal”) formal response to the above-referenced Civil Remedy Notices (“Notices”) filed by attorney, Hew Woodward, on behalf of Complainant, David Hunter (also referenced as “Insured.”) As a preliminary matter, attorney Hew Woodward, filed all three of the above referenced Notices with the Department of Financial Services for the same claim. The Notices are essentially identical. However, filing three different Notices for the same policyholder, policy or claim is not in accordance with Section 624.155, Florida Statutes or what is required under Department of Financial Services 10-363. Thus, the Notices are non-compliant. The Notices allege violations of Sections 624.155 and 626.9541, Florida Statutes. Universal specifically denies the allegations contained in the Notices. Additionally, Universal denies that it violated these or any statutes, Florida law or policy provisions regarding the claim adjustment of this matter. With that said, Universal asserts that the Notices fail to comply with the specific notice and information requirements as set forth in Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation document provisions, Section 624.155, Florida Statutes and Florida law. The Notices are deficient as a matter of law as they fail to comply with Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. See 316, Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Ins. Co., 625 F. Supp. 2d 1187 (N.D. Fla. 2008); Rousso v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., 2010 WL 7367059, (S. D. Fla. 2010); Heritage Corp. of South Fla. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, P.A., 580 F. Supp. 2d 1294 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co., 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). Pursuant to Section 624.155(3)(b), Florida Statutes, the Notices “shall state with specificity” the following information: 1. The statutory provision, including the specific language, which the authorized insurer allegedly violated; 2. the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation; 3. the name of any individual involved in the violation; 4. reference to specific policy language that is relevant to the violation, if any...; 5. a statement that the Notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section. Moreover, the Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) created form DFS-10-363, which lays out 15 requirements that the Complainant(s) must respond to with specificity. The Florida Supreme Court holds that Section 624.155, Florida Statutes “must be strictly construed.” Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1283 (Fla. 2000). Strict construction is appropriate as “this statute is in derogation of the common law.” Id. When interpreting a statute in derogation of the common law, “[a] court will presume that such a statute was not intended to alter the common law other than as clearly and plainly specified in the statute.” Time Ins. Co., Inc. v. Burger, 712 So. 2d 389, 393 (Fla. 1998). Such an interpretation would mean that statutory bad faith cases cannot proceed unless the Complainant(s) specifically complied with all statutory requirements. Pin-Pon Corp. v. Landmark American Ins. Co., 500 F. Supp. 3d 1336 (S.D. Fla. 2020); Julien v. United Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 311 So.3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). All three Notices fail to meet the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 624.155 on several grounds. First, the Civil Remedy Notice statute requires the Complainant(s) “pursuant to section 624.155, Florida Statutes, please indicate all statutory provisions alleged to have been violated.” All three Notices filed by the Complainant in this matter include almost every statutory provision that could be claimed against an insurance company. The Notices, however, fail to specify any facts to support how any of these statutes were violated. Because the Notices fail to specify how, if at all, any of these statutes were violated, none of the Notices comply with Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. Second, all three Notices fail to satisfy the requirement to identify the person or persons representing the insurer most responsible for or knowledgeable of the facts giving rise to the allegations. To comply with Sec. 624.155, Fla. Stat., the Complainant(s) must name the individual(s) involved with specificity related to the purported violation(s) to allow Universal to investigate the allegations. All three Notices lack the requisite specificity required by Sec. 624.155, Fla. Stat., because they each state “Stephen Goldsmith and Tunisia Abban,” without more. All of the Notices, however, fail to include any specificity as to what facts the named individuals have knowledge of that gave rise to any purported allegation(s) and/or what, if anything, they did or failed to do as it relates to the claim at issue. Specificity as to a person’s knowledge within Universal is of particular importance because the Complainant alleges “[a] material misrepresentation made to an insured…” by Universal and Universal “[m]isrepresent[ed] pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue.” All three of the Notices, however, fail to include the requisite specificity as to whom made any misrepresentations or when any of these misrepresentations occurred or what was misrepresented. Accordingly, all three of the Complainant’s Notices are insufficient as a matter of law. Third, all three Notices fail to satisfy Section 624.155(3)(b)(4), Florida Statutes, in that they fail to reference specific policy language relevant to any alleged violation. Instead, the Notices state: “THE FOLLOWING COVERAGES AND POLICY LANGUAGE ARE RELEVANT: COVERAGE A - DWELLING $414,363 COVERAGE D - LOSS OF USE $41,437 DWELLING REPLACEMENT COST Y LAW AND ORDINANCE $103,591 HOMEOWNER 3 - SPECIAL FORM MOLD/ FUNGI $10,000 INCLUDED LIBERALIZATION CLAUSE ‘LOSS SETTLEMENT…REPLACEMENT COST…WE WILL PAY THE COST TO REPAIR OR REPLACE, WITHOUT DEDUCTION FOR DEPRECIATION’” All three Notices are broad in scope and fail to identify any “specific policy language” relevant to any specific alleged violation. Instead, it recites the potential policy limits under the Policy. Further, all three Notices provide no guidance or explanation as to how the referenced Policy sections or categories of coverage relate to any allegation, such that Universal is left to wonder what policy language, if any, Complainant is alleging was violated. Therefore, in all three Notices, it is unclear what, if any, policy language pertains to any allegation. General, vague and overbroad references to potential or possible policy sections, titles and/or categories of coverage do not satisfy the specificity required by Section 624.155(3)(b)(4), Florida Statutes. As such, all three Notices are deficient as a matter of law. See generally Julien v. United Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 311 So.3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). Fourth, with respect to the requirement to set forth with specificity the “facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation,” all three Notices fail to specify any facts or circumstances that would give rise to Universal having violated any policy provision or statute. All three Notices assert a laundry list of general allegations consisting largely of inaccuracies, conclusory statements, speculation and/or conjecture. A written notice which is vague and “shotgun” in nature or is written in general terms fails to satisfy the specificity requirement of the statute. See Heritage Corp. of South Fla., 580 F. Supp. 2d at 1300; 316, Inc., 625 F. Supp. 2d at 1193; see also Rousso, 2010 WL 7367059 at *3-6; Valenti v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America, 2006 WL 1627276 (M.D. Fla. 2006). All three Notices consist of inferences and supposition rather than specific facts to support any of the alleged misconduct or statutory violations to support their conclusory statements. Further, all three Notices assert purported factual allegations regarding the alleged bad faith claim handling that instead relate to Universal’s defense of the lawsuit filed against it by the Insured. Litigation is not bad faith claim handling, and it is inappropriate to be included in a Civil Remedy Notice. The Parties’ litigation strategies, including Universal’s assertion of defenses in response to suit filed by the Insured, are not a proper subject for the Notices. The Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation process is not the appropriate venue for the resolution of any such disputes and therefore is not relevant in this forum. Moreover, all three Notices generally allege Universal violated Sections 626.9541(1)(i)(2) by allegedly making “[a] material misrepresentation … to an insured or any other person having an interest in the proceeds payable under such contract or policy…” and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), Fla. Stat., by “[m]isrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to the coverages at issue.” However, none of the three Notices specify any facts regarding any misrepresentations made by Universal, do not identify the person or persons who made such misrepresentations, nor do they identify to whom any misrepresentations were made. All three Notices are replete with vague and generic boilerplate and/or conclusory assertions which are not supported with specific facts and do not provide the requisite specificity as to when, what or how Universal allegedly violated any policy provision or statute. It is evident that the statements of facts fall short of the specificity required by Sec. 624.155, Fla. Stat. As a result, the Complainant failed to comply in any of the three Notices, with the requirements provided in Sec. 624.155(3)(b)(2), Fla. Stat. Thus, all three Notices are legally deficient as a matter of law. Lastly, the Notices do not provide a proper means whereby Universal can “cure” the alleged defects. The purpose of a Civil Remedy Notice is to provide the insurer an opportunity to “cure” the alleged wrongdoing. Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 753 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). The Florida Supreme Court holds that the scope of what can be “cured” in responding to a Civil Remedy Notice, is limited to contractual amounts due to the insured. See Talat, 753 So. 2d at 1281. Notably, the Complainant initiated litigation before filing any of the three Notices, thus there was no cure period available without Universal paying extra-contractual damages. Universal is only obligated to pay contractual amounts owed to cure a civil remedy notice. See id. at 1278. As such, all three Notices are legally deficient as they do not provide Universal an opportunity to “cure” any alleged violation without imposing obligations on Universal not contemplated by the Policy. In summary, as outlined above, the Complainant in all three Notices fails to respond to each of the fields set forth on the DFS Forms with the requisite specificity including, but not limited to, failing to identify all named policyholders, failing to satisfy the requirement to identify the person or persons representing the insurer most responsible for or knowledgeable of the facts giving rise to the allegations, failing to allege any specific conduct on the part of Universal that would violate any policy provision or statute, failing to reference specific policy language relevant to any alleged violation and failing to provide a cure as proscribed by Florida law. Therefore, all three of the Notices are legally deficient and fail to satisfy the condition precedent to filing a bad faith action. Pin-Pon Corp. v. Landmark American Ins. Co., 500 F. Supp. 3d 1336 (S.D. Fla. 2020); Julien v. United Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 311 So.3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). For the aforementioned reasons, the Notices are deficient as a matter of law. Nonetheless, and without waiving the above-referenced deficiencies, the following shall provide you with Universal’s response to each of the three Notices. On January 27, 2022, the Insured initiated litigation against Universal in Circuit Court in and for Osceola County, under Case No. 2022 CA 000221. On January 21, 2025, a verdict was entered in favor of the Insured/Plaintiff. On February 10, 2025, a final judgment was entered against Universal. Prior to entry of the final judgment, Universal timely filed a Renewed Motion for Directed Verdict and Motion for Remittitur. The Renewed Motion for Directed Verdict was subsequently denied and the Motion for Remittitur was granted in part. An Amended Final Judgment has not been entered at this time. Universal timely filed its Civil Supersedeas and Cost Bond automatically staying execution of the final judgment pending any appeal. Universal is within the time frame provided by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure to file a timely appeal. Upon entry of the Amended Final Judgment, Universal will proceed accordingly. As outlined above, the alleged statutory violations set forth in all three Notices are without merit and lack factual support. We trust that the foregoing is sufficient to advise you of Universal’s position regarding this matter and fully responds to the alleged violations in the Notices filed by the Complainant. Sincerely, /s/ Jonathan Rodriguez Jonathan Rodriguez, Esq. Associate General Counsel
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