Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     805998
Filing Accepted:  2/10/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
MERRYMAKERS CLUB OF TAMPA, FLORIDA, INCORPORATED   First Name  
Street Address * 124 DANUBE AVENUE
City, State Zip * TAMPA, FL 33606
Email Address * ALEXANDER.GLAZER2@GMAIL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   MERRYMAKERS CLUB OF TAMPA, FLORIDA, INCORPORATED   First Name  
Policy # * 350TBP100717 Claim #* 12799141
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* WATSON First Name * TRAVIS Initial
Street Address* 17862 HUNTING BOW CIRCLE, SUITE 102
City, State Zip* LUTZ , FL 33558
Email Address * TRAVIS@TRAVISWATSONLAW.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, LONDON
NAIC Company Code
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* HENRY HONG (FIELD ADJUSTER), ROB BURRITT (DESK ADJUSTER), JUAN RAFOLS (DONAN ENGINEERING) AND ALL OTHER INDIVIDUALS AND ENTITIES EMPLOYED, RETAINED, OR RELIED UPON BY CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S, LONDON AND CONVEX INSURANCE UK LIMITED AND DALE DU
Type of Insurance * Commercial 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)(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.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

“Our commitment to you is to provide a fast and fair claim service.” “We will pay for direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property at the premises described in the Declarations caused by or resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss.” “A. Covered Causes Of Loss When Special is shown in the Declarations, Covered Causes of Loss means direct physical loss unless the loss is excluded or limited in this policy.” “4. Loss Payment a. In the event of loss or damage covered by this Coverage Form, at our option, we will either: (1) Pay the value of lost or damaged property;” “B. Exclusions 2. We will not pay for loss or damage caused by or resulting from any of the following: d. (1) Wear and tear; (2) Rust or other corrosion, decay, deterioration, hidden or latent defect or any quality in property that causes it to damage or destroy itself. *** (4) Settling, cracking, shrinking or expansion; *** f. Continuous or repeated seepage or leakage of water, or the presence or condensation of humidity, moisture or vapor, that occurs over a period of 14 days or more. 3. We will not pay for loss or damage caused by or resulting from any of the following, 3.a. through 3.c. But if an excluded cause of loss that is listed in 3.a. through 3.c. results in a Covered Cause of Loss, we will pay for the loss or damage caused by that Covered Cause of Loss. *** c. Faulty, inadequate or defective: *** (2) Design, specifications, workmanship, repair, construction, renovation, remodeling, grading, compaction; (3) Materials used in repair, construction, renovation or remodeling; or (4) Maintenance. *** C. Limitations The following limitations apply to all policy forms and endorsements, unless otherwise stated: 1. We will not pay for loss of or damage to property, as described and limited in this section. In addition, we will not pay for any loss that is a consequence of loss or damage as described and limited in this section. *** c. The interior of any building or structure, or to personal property in the building or structure, caused by or resulting from rain, snow, sleet, ice, sand or dust, whether driven by wind or not, unless: (1) The building or structure first sustains damage by a Covered Cause of Loss to its roof or walls through which the rain, snow, sleet, ice, sand or dust enters;”
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

1) failure to pay claim in full; 2) claim denial and delay; 3) failure to promptly and properly investigate claim; 4) failure to act in due diligence and good faith to resolve claim; 5) placing financial interest of insurer before that of policy holder; 6) failure to properly train, evaluate and manage adjusters; 7) not treating the policyholder with good faith claims conduct; 8) looking for ways to deny coverage or “stone wall” claim; 9) the reasons for this may be attributed to improper training, supervision, and/or motivation of adjusters and claims supervisors to promptly and fairly investigate, adjust and pay full benefits available to all beneficiaries. Underwriters have failed to adopt proper standards of investigation and adjustment of losses, or is otherwise not implementing those standards because a reasonable investigation and full payment for the loss did not and is not occurring; 10) not adjusting the claim and evaluating the loss properly, promptly and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to the Insured; 11) failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims; 12) 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; 13) establishing severity control initiatives and otherwise establishing a culture of not fully and promptly paying claims following losses; On or about September 27, 2024, the Insured’s (Merrymakers Club of Tampa, Florida, Incorporated) building located at 124 Danube Avenue, Tampa, FL 33606 sustained extensive wind and ensuing water damage as a result of Hurricane Helene. The Insured timely reported the damage and submitted a claim to its insurer Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London and Convex Insurance UK Limited and Dale Dual MGU Limited (“Underwriters”). In response to receipt of the Insured’s claim, Underwriters assigned Henry Hong to presumably investigate the claim. However, for unknown reasons, Underwriters, through Henry Hong, waited until October 22, 2024 to inspect the damage. Underwriters then waited until November 24, 2024 to again inspect the property through engineer Juan Rafols. On December 6, 2024, Mr. Rafols authored a report in which he concluded that severe winds affected the area of the Insured’s building during Hurricane Helene, that the roof of the building exhibited missing and abraded shingles and the ridge vent was deformed and that these conditions were the result of wind uplift pressures, abrasion with tree limbs, and impact with wind-borne debris. Mr. Rafols also concluded that the roof’s dimensional shingles were damaged by wind and that with the exception of the water intrusion through the ridge vent on the second-story portion of the building, the water intrusion into the building was the result of imperfections in the building envelope allegedly unrelated to wind. He also opined that copious amounts of rain and wind-driven rain during the recent storm promoted water to infiltrate through the imperfections, and that with the exemption of the water infiltrating and affecting the Bar Room, the color of the stains in the affected building materials indicated that those components had been exposed to water for a short period (i.e., days). Even though Mr. Rafols confirmed that the roofs of the insured building were damaged by wind and that water entered the building through a cause of loss not excluded under the policy (wind and/or imperfections in the building envelope), Mr. Hong prepared a recklessly low-ball estimate of the alleged covered damages in the amount of only $20,931.38 RCV / $20,297.38 ACV. Thereafter, Underwriters notified the Insured that because the amount of the replacement cost estimate was allegedly below the deductible, there was no claim payment to be made. Underwriters’ inexplicable behavior towards the Insured forced the Insured to exercise its rights under the laws of the state of Florida and the United States of America to retain the services of the licensed, experienced, professional public adjuster, Robert S. Speer. Mr. Speer caused a thorough examination of the damaged property to be conducted and an estimate to bring the property to its pre-loss condition to be prepared. The estimate was in the amount of $373,397.84 RCV / $365,467.51 ACV. Mr. Speer submitted the estimate of covered damages to Underwriters, however, Underwriters have done nothing and refused to pay the amount reasonably necessary to bring the Insured’s property to its pre-loss condition subject to the terms of the Policy. Underwriters have violated Florida law (Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a)) by failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. Had Underwriters adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of claims, they would have recognized that the Insured’s property sustained substantial covered wind damage, they would have hired adjusters who are properly trained to identify, correctly estimate, and pay for wind damage, they would have recognized that their own adjuster’s estimate was a reckless low-ball estimate and should be rejected, they would not have denied coverage for the interior water damage based on a cause of loss not excluded in the policy, they would have recognized that the Insured’s damage estimate of $373,397.84 RCV / $365,467.51 ACV is reasonable and should be paid, and they would have already paid the Insured the amount reasonably necessary to bring the Insured’s property to its pre-loss condition subject to the terms of the policy. Instead, Underwriters have either taught their adjusters how to low-ball claims by ignoring obvious covered damage or hired untrained and inexperienced adjusters who are incapable of properly adjusting claims. Underwriters have violated Florida law (Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b)) by misrepresenting pertinent facts and insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. Specifically, Underwriters’ low-ball estimate is a misrepresentation of the actual amount of property damage payable under the Policy resulting from the wind loss. Furthermore, Underwriters under deductible letter contains numerous pertinent misrepresentations of facts and policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. Specifically, the letter states that the damages were caused by numerous excluded causes of loss, including damage that occurred before the policy incepted, wear and tear, deterioration, settling, continuous leakage of water that occurred over a period of 14 days or more, and faulty design, construction, repair, and maintenance. These are factual misrepresentations because the damage did not occur from these causes. Furthermore, Underwriters’ engineer concluded that the building did sustain wind damage. Thus, even if the excluded causes of loss cited in Underwriters’ letter caused some damage (which they didn’t), the damage was concurrently caused by wind (a covered cause of loss), and therefore all of the damage is covered pursuant to Florida law. Furthermore, Underwriters’ engineer specifically opined that the water intrusion occurred as a result of wind and/or imperfections in the building envelope, neither of which are excluded causes of loss in the Policy. Accordingly, Underwriters’ assertion in their under deductible letter that the limitation on interior water damage applies to limit coverage is a misrepresentation of insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. Since Underwriters don’t know what caused the imperfections in the building envelope, all interior water damage is covered. Underwriters’ assertion to the contrary is a violation of Florida law. Underwriters have violated Florida law (Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d)) by denying the Insured’s claim (by refusing to pay the amount reasonably necessary to bring the Insured’s property to its pre-loss condition subject to the terms of the Policy) without conducting a reasonable investigation based upon available information. Underwriters’ investigation is unsatisfactory and unreasonable given that it created such a reckless low-ball estimate of the wind damage and because it has denied the Insured’s claim based on opinions that actually support coverage for the amount claimed by the Insured. Underwriters have ignored obvious facts and opinions (or misapplied them), including substantial wind damage and a valid estimate from a professional estimator. Underwriters have violated Florida law (Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f)) by failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the Insured of the basis in the insurance policy, in relation to the facts and applicable law, for not paying the amount reasonably necessary to bring the property to its pre-loss condition. As set forth above, Underwriters’ under deductible letter is not reasonable, misrepresents facts, and misapplies Policy provisions to wrongly deny coverage for the damages the Insured sustained. Underwriters have violated Florida law (Section 624.155(1)(b)(1.)) by not attempting in good faith to settle the Insured’s claim when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward the Insured and with due regard for the Insured’s interests. Underwriters’ low-ball estimate and wrongful denial of roof replacement and interior water damage is evidence that they are not acting fairly or honestly with due regard for the Insured’s interests. Further, because Underwriters are ignoring and disregarding the Insured’s damage estimate and standing on their unjustified reasons for denying further payment, Underwriters are showing that they are not attempting in good faith to settle the Insured’s claim. Rather, Underwriters are putting their own financial interests above the Insured’s even though they know or should know that the Insured’s damage estimate is reasonable and/or that its own estimate is not reasonable. Rather than carrying out its contractual, statutory, regulatory, and ethical duties that they owed to the Insured, Underwriters have committed acts which were not in good faith and were in violation of Florida Statute § 624.155(1)(b)(1) and Florida Statute § 626.9541(1)(i). These acts include: a. Not attempting in good faith to settle the Insured’s claim when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward the Insured and with due regard for the Insured’s interests. b. Failing to properly investigate the Insured’s claim. c. Failing to properly apply expert opinions to policy provisions. d. Unsatisfactory settlement offers. e. Attempting to find ways to delay and improperly deny the Insured’s claim rather than providing prompt and proper indemnity to the Insured for its claim. f. Creating a hostile and adversarial investigation and adjustment of the Insured’s insurance claim. g. Failing to properly train, supervise, or otherwise manage adjusters, representatives, and investigators to properly, promptly, and in good faith, investigate and adjust claims so that a prompt and fair evaluation of the claim can be made, and proper indemnity paid, resulting in the failure to timely pay the Insured’s covered claim. h. Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of the Insured’s claim, resulting in the aforementioned conduct. i. Retaining outcome-oriented adjusters and experts. j. Misrepresenting, ignoring, and/or omitting pertinent facts relating to the coverages and/or facts of the loss at issue, so as to provide an illegitimate, unjustified, and/or unfounded basis for denying, delaying, and/or underpaying the Insured’s claim. k. Denying and delaying the Insured’s claim without conducting a reasonable investigation based upon available information. l. Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the Insured of the basis in the Policy, in relation to the facts and/or applicable law, for the denial of the Insured’s claimed damages. m. Failing to timely pay the contractual amount owed the Insured under the Policy for its claim in a manner consistent with the Policy and Florida law. n. Training, evaluating, and promoting adjusters and claims management based on reduction of claim payments rather than promptly and fully paying the contractual amount owed to the Insured under the Policy for his claim. Underwriters have not attempted in good faith to settle the Insured’s claim when, under all the circumstances, they could and should have done so, had they acted fairly and honestly toward the Insured and with due regard for its interests. This is a violation of Florida law. Underwriters have failed and/or refused to thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigate and evaluate the Insured’s insurance claim for damages. Instead, Underwriters are relying upon adjusters and claims representatives who are biased, untrained, and unable to properly and timely investigate and pay property damage claims. Underwriters have failed to pay for covered property damage caused by a Covered Cause of Loss, namely, substantial wind damage. By not completing a proper investigation of the Insured’s claim in a timely manner and paying the Insured’s the amount reasonably necessary to bring the Insured’s building to its pre-loss condition, Underwriters have improperly, illegally, and recklessly denied the Insured’s claim. Underwriters have failed to complete a thorough and unbiased evaluation of the Insured’s damage and claim, and that failure has caused additional damages and financial harm to the Insured. Underwriters have ignored important information that would benefit the Insured, including the valid estimate submitted by Robert Speer and the findings of their own engineer. The Insured has sustained a covered loss as a result of wind damage. The Insured timely reported the damage to Underwriters. Underwriters have failed to tender all insurance monies due and owing the Insured for the damage. Underwriters charged the Insured a premium for property insurance but has refused and/or failed to tender all insurance monies under the policy, when under all circumstances they could have and should have done so had they acted fairly and honestly towards the Insured. Additionally, the Insured contends this is done company-wide and that other insureds have been refused insurance monies under Underwriters’ policies in the same or similar circumstances. Underwriters have failed and/or refused to thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigate and evaluate the Insured’s insurance claim for damages. Underwriters have refused and/or failed to tender all insurance proceeds to the Insured upon demand as required by the policy and/or law. Underwriters commit this practice only to keep claims adjustment process open and pending so they do not have to pay fully on the claim. This is wrong. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, Underwriters must: 1. Immediately tender the amount reasonably necessary to bring the Insured’s property to its pre-loss condition subject to the terms of the policy; 2. Pay statutory interest on the amount paid in number 1 above from the date of the loss to the date of its payment of the amount paid in number 1 above; 3. Act fairly and honestly towards the Insured and with due regard for its interests in attempting to settle the Insured’s claim; 4. Cease and desist all present and future bad faith actions with regard to the Insured’s claim. Failure to cure all defects may result in additional extra-contractual damages. This notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by Florida Statutes, including any and all bad faith/extra contractual and punitive damages, should Underwriters fail to cure the violations set forth in this Civil Remedy Notice within the given cure period.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
travis@traviswatsonlaw.com 07-10-2025 MERRYMAKERS CLUB OF TAMPA, FLORIDA, INCORPORATED withdraws CRN 805998.
ccapeles@wshblaw.com 04-08-2025 We write on behalf of Certain Interested Underwriters at Lloyd's London Subscribing to Policy No. 350TBP100717 ("Underwriters") in response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation bearing DFS File No. 805998 (the "Notice") which was submitted to the Florida Department of Financial Services by Merrymaker Club of Tampa, Florida, Inc., (the "Insured") in connection with the property located at 124 Danube Avenue, Tampa, FL 33606 (the "Subject Property"). Underwriters insured the Subject Property under Policy No. 350TBP100717, which was effective from June 23, 2024 to June 23, 2024 (the "Policy"). The Notice bears a filing acceptance date of February 10, 2025, making this response due on April 11, 2025. The purpose of a civil remedy notice is to provide an opportunity for the insurer to cure the alleged violation and thereby avoid civil litigation. Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, requires that the insurer must "have been given 60 days’ written notice of the violation." According to Section 624.155(3), the notice “shall be on a form provided by the department and shall state with specificity . . . information as the department may require[.]” The Department provides Form DFS-10-363, which is the form used by the Insured to create the Notice. Among other things, Form DFS-10-363 requires the “Insurer Name.” As such, when an insurer is not specifically named in a civil remedy notice, the notice requirement of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, is not met as to that insurer. Sandalwood Estates Homeowner's Ass'n, Inc. v. Empire Indem. Ins. Co., 665 F. Supp.2d 1355 (S.D. Fla. 2009); Lopez v. Geico Casualty Co., 968 F. Supp.2d 1202 (S.D. Fla. 2013). Here, the “Notice Against” section simply names “UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S, LONDON.” The Insurers under the Policy reserve all rights on this issue. THE NOTICE IS LEGALLY DEFICIENT At the outset, the Notice should be deemed legally deficient, on the most basic level, as it fails to conform with many of the requirements of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. Since Section 624.155 creates a remedy, it must be strictly construed. See Rousso v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., 2010 WL 7367059 (S.D. Fla. 2010). Section 624.155 mandates that a notice "shall state with specificity… the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation" (emphasis added). Indeed, a civil remedy notice must be specific enough to provide the insurer notice of the wrongdoing so that the insurer can cure the same within sixty days. Underwriters respectfully state that the Notice should be deemed legally deficient for its failure to state with specificity the facts and circumstances giving rise to the alleged violations, as required by Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. The Insured alleges five statutory violations; however, the Insured fails to link the alleged statutory violations to any facts that would support the claim that the Underwriters allegedly violated those statutes. Instead, the Insured states generally that violations of these statutes occurred, but provides no specific facts to substantiate these conclusory claims. For instance, the Notice alleges that Underwriters violated Florida Statute §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a). This provision pertains to the failure to adopt and implement adequate investigation standards. The Notice, however, despite asserting a violation of this provision, fails to point to any specific instances in which Underwriters failed to adopt and/or implement investigation standards for the proper investigation of claims. In fact, Underwriters investigated the Loss with a field adjuster and engineer, subsequently issuing a coverage determination based on an expert cause and origin opinion. This is just one example of the Notice's deficiencies. The Notice also alleges violations of Florida Statutes §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), and §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d). These provisions are for allegedly misrepresenting facts, and denying claims without conducting a reasonable investigation based upon the available information. However, to the contrary, after Underwriters received notice of the claim, it promptly assigned Hausch & Company to conduct an investigation of the Loss. As part of this investigation, Underwriters inspected the Property with a field adjuster and engineer. Based upon Underwriters' investigation, Underwriters determined that covered damages fell below the Policy's applicable deductible. Even further, the Notice alleges that Underwriters are in violation of Florida Statutes §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f). This provision relates to failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation of the basis of coverage. However, Underwriters issued a final coverage determination letter on December 13, 2024, detailing Underwriters' coverage decisions and the basis for same. The December 13, 2024, letter even enclosed an engineering report from which Underwriters made their coverage determination. Finally, the Notice alleges that Underwriters are in violation of Florida Statutes §§624.155(1)(b)(1), which requires insurers to settle claims in good faith and promptly when the obligation has become reasonably clear. Despite the requirement that notices must state with specificity the circumstances giving rise to the allegation, the Insureds, as noted above, rely on, at best, conclusory statements to support its assertion that Underwriters violated the quoted statutory provisions. The above cited allegations are nothing more than a recitation of the mentioned statutes without any facts supporting the same. Ultimately, the Notice does not put Underwriters on notice of any specific actions or omissions to support the alleged violations. In sum, the Notice simply indicates that the Insured is not happy with the settlement payment that it received for its insurance claim. Furthermore, civil remedy notices are required to cite to specific policy provisions and specific policy language. In this case, the Notice simply cites numerous exclusions and states that Underwriters will pay for direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property caused by or resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss, leaving Underwriters to speculate as to what specific portion of the Policy the Insured believes Underwriters violated. The exclusion of necessary policy language fails to provide Underwriters with notice as to the Insured's specific concerns with Underwriters' claim investigation; and therefore, the Notice fails to comply with the requirement of Section 624.155. Instead of providing Underwriters with actual notice of the Insured's concerns about the claim, the Notice is essentially a "shotgun-blast effort to hit a lot of targets with a single salvo." Rousso v. Liberty Surplus Insurance Corp., 2010 WL 7367059 at *5 (S.D. Fla. 2010). This type of approach is disfavored by Florida courts because it is contrary to the purposes of Section 624.155. "The civil remedy notice must reflect a good-faith effort to inform the insurer of how it has fallen short of its obligations under the policy and what it can do to fix its shortcomings. The civil remedy notice is not the place for posturing or advocacy, and an effort to overstate a claim in a civil remedy notice may end up undermining it." Id. As a result of the "shotgun-blast approach" taken with respect to this Notice, Underwriters are left without reasonable means to respond to the alleged violations. As a result, Underwriters cannot respond to the litany of the alleged violations. Accordingly, the Insured's Notice is deficient because it does not state with specificity the facts and circumstances giving rise to the alleged violations in a manner specific enough to provide Underwriters notice of the alleged wrongdoings, as required by the law. For these reasons, Underwriters respectfully request that the Notice be deemed deficient and insufficient. Finally, the Notice should be deemed deficient because it does not provide Underwriters with a reasonable opportunity to "cure" the alleged defects. Section 624.155 mandates that "[n]o action shall lie if, within 60 days after filing notice, the damages are paid or the circumstances giving rise to the violation are corrected." (emphasis supplied). The Florida Legislature enacted the sixty-day cure window to provide "a last opportunity for insurers to comply with their claim-handling obligations." 316, Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 625 F. Supp. 2d 1187, 1192 (N.D. Fla. 2008) (quoting Talat Enters., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000)). "[T]he purpose of the civil remedy notice is to give the insurer one last chance to settle the claim with its insured and avoid unnecessary bad faith litigation." 316, Inc., 625 F. Supp. 2d at 1192. Here, the Insured demands that Underwriters: 1. Immediately tender the amount reasonably necessary to bring the Insured's property to its pre-loss condition subject to the terms of the policy; 2. Pay statutory interest on the amount paid in number 1 above from the date of loss to the date of its payment of the amount paid in number 1 above; 3. Act fairly and honestly towards the Insured and with due regard for its interests in attempting to settle the Insured's claim; and 4. Cease and desist all present and future bad faith actions with regard to the Insured's claim. The cure demand therefore appears to be different things, none of which are offered with sufficient specificity and many of which require Underwriters to exceed their obligations under the insurance contract and law. The Notice purports to require payment of the Insured's claim or payment of damages and interest, which are not considered part of the contract cure amount under Florida law. See Talat, 753 So. 2d at 1281. This inconsistency makes it difficult for Underwriters to determine the actual "cure" amount, as the Notice makes no reference in its cure demand to Underwriters' deductible. In an attempt to clear up the ambiguity regarding the damages being claimed, in accordance with the Policy, on March 5, 2025 Underwriters sent written correspondence to Insured's counsel requesting a "cure" amount as the Notice is deficient. Again, the Insured and its legal counsel failed to provide the requested "cure" amount. As such, the Notice is legally deficient because it denies Underwriters a reasonable opportunity to “cure” the defects alleged, in plain contravention of well-settled Florida law. UNDERWRITERS ACTED IN GOOD FAITH Notwithstanding the fact that the Notice is legally deficient, Underwriters respectfully deny that they have acted in bad faith. To the contrary, Underwriters have acted at all times in good faith and with due consideration of the Insured's interests. The actual facts of this claim establish that the Insured's Notice is unfounded, as Underwriters resolved the Insured's claim as expeditiously as possible and in accord with the terms of coverage afforded by the Policy. On October 3, 2024, Underwriters received notice of Insured's loss. Thereafter, Underwriters retained a filed adjuster ("FA") to inspect the Subject Property. On 11 October 2024, the Insured's public adjuster, Robert Speer, provided an estimate of damages totaling $373,397.84 RCV. After several attempts to schedule the initial inspection, the FA's inspection was conducted on October 22, 2024. Following the FA's inspection, on October 28, 2024, Underwriters issued a Reservation of Rights letter advising the Insured of possible Policy exclusions and limitations that may be applicable to the Loss. Within the same letter, Underwriters advised the Insured that an engineer had been assigned to conduct an inspection of the Property. Based on the FA's investigation, Underwriters opened coverage for the Insured's loss via a below deductible letter on November 12, 2024. Coverage was provide for the two-story shingle roof in the amount of $18,607.27 RCV. Underwriters' engineer inspected the Subject Property on December 6, 2024. Based on the engineer's inspection, Underwriters issued a supplemental coverage determination letter advising that additional damages appeared to be covered under the policy, but reconfirming that Underwriters had properly determined that the loss fell below the Policy's applicable deductible. Total covered damages had increased to $20,297.38 RCV. A copy of Donan Engineering report was enclosed within the supplemental coverage determination letter. As drafted, the Notice is essentially a contention that Underwriters acted in "bad faith" because they did not pay what the Insured believed it was owed. This is not "bad faith," and out of step with the governing law and purpose behind the Civil Remedy Notice practice. See 316, Inc., 625 F. Supp. 2d at 1194. Florida law continually affirms the principle that an insurer has the right to investigate claims presented for payment. An insurance company is expressly afforded an opportunity to evaluate its rights and liabilities. Neither the Policy nor does Florida law provide that an insurer must accept whatever demand for repairs it is provided by its Insureds as the amount necessary to repair a loss. In the instant case, the violations alleged by the Insured all revolve around the contention that Underwriters did not accept and pay the Insured's full demand for repair. In sum, if the Notice is not found to be legally deficient for the various reasons referenced above, Underwriters respectfully emphasizes that it has done nothing other than act in utmost good faith and applied the terms of coverage as clearly and unambiguously stated in the Policy.
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