Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     806280
Filing Accepted:  2/11/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
MCNEAR   First Name   GARY & SUSAN
Street Address * 11451 WELLFLEET DRIVE
City, State Zip * FORT MYERS, FL 33908
Email Address * GARY@MCNEARTEAM.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   MCNEAR   First Name   GARY & SUSAN
Policy # * CHP5048469 Claim #* M13506
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* HARRIS First Name * ASHLEY Initial
Street Address* 777 S HARBOUR ISLAND BLVD., SUITE 950
City, State Zip* TAMPA , FLORIDA 33602
Email Address * AHARRIS@MERLINLAWGROUP.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   CENTAURI SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 12573
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* MATTHEW KING, DREW HARLAU, DARREN DANIEL, SCHARLENE TAYLOR, JAMES ELLISON, STEFANIE CAPPS
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
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)(2) A material misrepresentation made to an insured or any other person having an interest in the proceeds payable under such contract or policy, for the purpose and with the intent of effecting settlement of such claims, loss, or damage under such contract or policy on less favorable terms than those provided in, and contemplated by, such contract or policy.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f) Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of the basis in the insurance policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement.
626.9541(1)(i)(4) Failing to pay undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed under first-party property insurance policies within 60 days after an insurer receives notice of a residential property insurance claim, determines the amounts of partial or full benefits, and agrees to coverage, unless payment of the undisputed benefits is prevented by factors beyond the control of the insurer as defined in s. 627.70131(5).
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

AGREEMENT We will provide the insurance described in this policy In return for the premium and compliance with all applicable provisions of this policy. * * * SECTION I — PROPERTY COVERAGES A. Coverage A — Dwelling 1. We cover: a. The dwelling on the “residence premises” shown in the Declarations, including structures attached to the dwelling: and * * * E. Additional Coverages 2. Reasonable Emergency Measures a. We will pay up to the greater of $3,000 or 1% of your Coverage A limit of liability for the reasonable costs incurred by you for necessary measures taken solely to protect covered property from further damage, when the damage or loss is caused by a Peril Insured Against. * * * SECTION I — PERILS INSURED AGAINST A. Coverage A — Dwelling And Coverage B Other Structures 1. We insure against risk of direct physical loss to property described in Coverages A and B. * * * C. Loss Settlement In this Condition C., the terms “cost to repair or replace” and “replacement cost” do not include the increased costs incurred to comply with the enforcement of any ordinance or law, except to the extent that coverage for these increased costs is provided in E.11. Ordinance Or Law under Section — Property Coverages. Covered property losses are settled as follows: 2. Buildings covered under Coverage A or B at replacement cost without deduction for depreciation, subject to the following: a. If, at the time of loss, the amount of insurance in this policy on the damaged building Is 80% or more of the full replacement cost of the building immediately before the loss, we will pay the cost to repair or replace, after application of any deductible and without deduction for depreciation, but not more than the least of the following amounts: (1) The limit of liability under this policy that applies to the building; (2) The replacement cost of that part of the building damaged with material of like kind and quality and for like use; or (3) The necessary amount actually spent to repair or replace the damaged building. If the building is rebuilt at a new premises, the cost described in (2) above is limited to the cost which would have been incurred if the building had been built at the original premises. * * * d. We will initially pay at least the actual cash value of the insured loss, less any applicable deductible. We will pay any remaining amount necessary to perform such repairs as work is performed and expenses are incurred, If a total loss of a building or structure Insured under this policy occurs, we will pay the replacement cost coverage without reservation or holdback of any depreciation in value, subject to policy limits. * * * I. Loss Payment We will adjust all losses with you. We will pay you unless some other person is named in the policy or is legally entitled to receive payment. Any loss payment will be paid to you and them, as each interest appears. Loss will be payable upon the earliest of the following: 3. Within ninety (90) days after we receive notice of an initial claim, “reopened claim”, or “supplemental claim” from you, we will pay or deny such claim or a portion of the claim unless the failure to pay such claim or portion of claim is caused by factors beyond our control which reasonably prevent such payment.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. Centauri Specialty Insurance Company (“Centauri”), has breached this duty by its adjustment of the policyholders’ claim of loss. Centauri has failed to create and implement adequate guidelines for proper investigation and evaluation of claims and for training and supervision of employees resulting in statutory violations as set forth herein. Centauri has failed and/or refused to thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigate and evaluate the policyholders’ insurance claim for damages based on all information available and has instead ignored relevant and obvious information that evidences that additional payment is required under the policy. Notwithstanding the timely notification of the insurance claim, Centauri has delayed and/or refused to tender to the policyholders all insurance proceeds due and owing under the insurance policy in a timely manner. To date, notwithstanding the policyholders’ pleas otherwise, Centauri has continued to refuse to acknowledge its obligation to tender all monies due and owing or assist the policyholders in the mitigation of their damages. The policyholders are Gary and Susan McNear whose property was damaged as the result of Hurricane Ian on or about September 28, 2022. Damages resulting from winds associated with Hurricane Ian are undisputedly covered under the relevant insurance policy. The policyholders timely notified Centauri of the damages on September 28, 2022, and opened a claim pursuant to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In response to the claim for benefits, Centauri retained IMS Claim Services, an independent adjusting firm, to adjust the loss. IMS assigned the loss to Darren Daniel as the inside adjuster and Drew Harklau as the field adjuster. Darren Daniel was responsible for making a coverage determination and issuing payments for covered damages. Drew Harklau was responsible for inspecting the property and providing an estimate of covered damages. Drew Harlau inspected the property on October 7, 2022, and on October 11, 2022, Mr. Harlau provided his field adjuster report to Centauri, which included a narrative report and photographs. The photographs depict damaged soffits, dents in the overhead garage door, damaged and repaired hose bib, damaged deck tiles around the pool, piles of damaged roof tiles in the yard and strewn throughout the roof, interior ceiling stains, and damage to the wall from the hose bib break. Given the extensive damage to the tile roof, Defendant extended coverage for roof replacement. However, Defendant failed to allow for any waste factor, when Eagleview, an industry standard, estimated a 25% waste factor given the construction of the roof. Additionally, the estimate allowed for no overhead and profit. The estimate included a line item (no. 37) for pool decking, but left the amount at $0.00 and stated it was “awaiting estimate.” The estimate included an allowance of $154.43 for “non functional” pool pump, but no allowance for the necessary labor to replace the “non functional” pool pump. Finally, the estimate allowed for no interior repairs, despite the adjuster photographing the damage to the interior of the wall where the hose bib required emergency repair, and there was ceiling damage from water intrusion in the guest bathroom. Despite Defendant’s representative photographing these interior damages, no payments were issued for these covered damages. On October 30, 2022, Centauri sent correspondence to Mr. and Mrs. McNear advising that it was issuing payment in the amount of $142,556.18 under Coverage A – Dwelling after deduction of the $20,000 deductible and $15,581.88 recoverable depreciation; and $845.27 under Coverage B – Other Structures after deduction of $30.89 recoverable depreciation. The October 30, 2022, correspondence further misrepresented to Mr. and Mrs. McNear that pursuant to the policy provisions, they had to submit a claim for the withheld recoverable depreciation by March 28, 2023. Finally, the October 30, 2022, correspondence advised that if additional damages are found to forward a copy of the estimate so that it may address any differences fairly and promptly. On December 12, 2022, Centauri sent correspondence to Mr. and Mrs. McNear advising that an additional payment of 11,135.76 was being issued, and again misrepresented that the policy required them to submit a claim for the withheld recoverable depreciation by March 28, 2023. The December 12, 2022, correspondence did not explain why an additional $11,135.76 was being tendered, but a comparison of the estimates reveals that Centauri arbitrarily added overhead and profit to a single line item (no. 2) to replace tiling roofing – concrete – “S” or flat tile, but chose not to apply overhead and profit to any other line items relating to the necessary roof replacement. On December 30, 2022, Mr. and Mrs. Mcnear sent correspondence to Centauri advising that they intended to perform the repairs to the property and were making a claim for the recoverable depreciation. The correspondence also enclosed an estimate of covered damages exceeding Centauri’s estimate of damage pursuant to the request for same contained in the October 30, 2022, correspondence from Centauri. The itemized estimate prepared by Exact Building Consultants included 251 photographs of the property with descriptions of the damage portrayed in the photographs. For example, photograph 236 described the damage as “damage to wall from plumbing;” and photograph 246 described the damage as “damage to ceiling.” Additionally, photographs 7-12, 36-39, 41, 48-49, 51-52, 57, 64, 79-81, 87-90, 96-97, 99, 102-108, 118, 125-128, 159-169 all depicted and described damage to the fenestrations and the estimate contained considerable amounts for repairs and/or replacement of the damaged fenestrations. Thus, Centauri was on notice that Mr. and Mrs. McNear were claiming damages to the interior of their home and the fenestrations upon receipt of the December 30, 2022, correspondence. The December 30, 2022, correspondence further advised that Mr. and Mrs. McNear engaged Apex Roofing and Restoration, LLC to complete the roof replacement and requested that Centauri perform any additional inspections of the roof within thirty (30) days. The correspondence also enclosed a proposal from Bastos Pavers Inc. in the amount of $16,500 for the damaged deck tile around the pool and again asked that Centauri notify them of any additional inspections within thirty (30) days and to immediately tender payment for the pool deck repairs. On January 11, 2023, Centauri sent correspondence to Mr. and Mrs. McNear stating that their investigation was incomplete and in order to make a coverage determination they needed “estimate and supporting documents (photos) to support [their] supplemental claim payment request.” Notably, the January 11, 2023, correspondence was sent from Scharlene Taylor, the third desk adjuster assigned to the claim on behalf of Centauri. On February 6, 2023, Mr. and Mrs. McNear sent correspondence to Ms. Taylor acknowledging receipt of the January 11, 2023, correspondence received on January 17, 2023, requesting an estimate and supporting documents (photos) to support the supplemental claim payment request. Mr. and Mrs. McNear advised Centauri that they had previously provided an itemized estimate prepared by Exact Building Consultants, Inc. along with photographs of the damage on December 30, 2022. Mr. and Mrs. McNear also reminded Centauri that they had provided an invoice from Bastos Pavers Inc. in the amount of $16,500 and again requested immediate payment of same. Finally, Mr. and Mrs. McNear again requested that Centauri confirm that they were entitled to recover the withheld depreciation beyond March 28, 2023, as contained in the October 30, 2022, correspondence from Centauri. Mr. and Mrs. McNear enclosed a copy of the December 30, 2022, correspondence along with the referenced enclosures. On February 16, 2023, Mr. and Mrs. McNear received correspondence from James Ellison of Centauri advising that he was the new adjuster handling the claim as of February 14, 2023. Thus, he was the fourth desk adjuster assigned to adjust Mr. and Mrs. McNear’s claim in less than four months from the date of loss. The correspondence failed to acknowledge receipt of the February 6, 2023, correspondence or the documentation submitted to Centauri on December 30, 2023, or February 6, 2023. On February 22, 2023, Mr. and Mrs. McNear sent correspondence to Centauri advising that they had recently received a claim payment in the amount of $11,891.03, which referenced “Supp” but no additional documentation or information was provided. Accordingly, Mr. and Mrs. McNear requested an itemized estimate explaining the basis for this payment. Mr. and Mrs. McNear also advised that they had submitted an itemized estimate prepared by Exact Building Consultants, Inc. along with photographs of the damages and a proposal from Bastos Pavers Inc. in the amount of $16,500 on December 30, 2022. Mr. and Mrs. McNear again requested that Centauri confirm that they are entitled to recover the withheld depreciation beyond March 28, 2023, as no response to this request had been addressed. Finally, Mr. and Mrs. McNear enclosed copies of the February 6, 2023 and December 30, 2022, correspondence along with the referenced enclosures. On February 27, 2023, Mr. and Mrs. McNear received correspondence from Centauri dated February 20, 2023, again advising that James Ellison was the new desk adjuster assigned to the claim. Again, nothing in Mr. and Mrs. McNear’s December 30, 2022, or February 6, 2023 correspondence was addressed or acknowledged. On March 17, 2023, Mr. and Mrs. McNear received correspondence from Centauri dated February 17, 2023 (addressed directly to Mr. and Mrs. McNear despite counsel’s involvement), advising that an additional payment of $11,891.03 was being issued under Coverage A, and enclosing a copy of the revised estimate of damages. Again, nothing in Mr. and Mrs. McNear’s December 30, 2022, or February 6, 2023 correspondence was addressed or acknowledged. Notably, despite being provided with a paid invoice from Bastos Pavers, Centauri withheld $1,355.42 in depreciation for the pool decking and has failed to issue payment to Mr. and Mrs. McNear for the withheld depreciation despite knowing that Mr. and Mrs. McNear incurred $16,885 for the paver repairs. Additionally, Centauri failed to issue owed statutory interest pursuant to Fla. Stat. §627.70131, which requires that Centauri pay interest on any payment made 90 days after Centauri received notice of the claim (September 28, 2022). Centauri issued payment in the amount of $11,891.03 on February 17, 2023, but failed to pay the owed interest on the payment. On March 17, 2023, Mr. and Mrs. McNear reiterated their prior request sent on October 28, 2022, that all correspondence be directed to counsel. Mr. and Mrs. McNear also explained that the “Second and Final supplemental report” provided with the February 17, 2023, correspondence only paid a portion of the contract price with Bastos Pavers Inc. and requested that Centauri immediately tender payment for the full cost incurred for the paver and related repairs. With regard to the roof, Mr. and Mrs. McNear provided an Eagleview Report showing that the measurements used by Centauri were incorrect and that Eagleview recommended a waste factor of 25% for a total replacement of 94.33 squares of tile roofing. Mr. and Mrs. McNear requested that Centauri immediately tender additional payment for the correct roof dimensions and enclosed a copy of the executed contract with Apex Roofing and Restoration, LLC in the amount of $207,460. The March 17, 2023, correspondence also advised that the Second and Final supplemental report failed to include replacement of the damaged fenestrations and enclosed a report prepared by Moisture Intrusion Solutions, Inc. explaining that the windows and sliding glass doors were damaged from Hurricane Ian and required replacement. Finally, Mr. and Mrs. McNear advised that the Second and Final supplemental report failed to include any amounts for interior damages to the home and requested that Centauri immediately tender payment for the interior damages. Notably, Centauri was notified of both the interior damages and fenestration damages with the submission of the Exact Building Consultants, Inc. estimate submitted on December 30, 2022, which was 77 days with no action in response to this information as of the March 17, 2023, correspondence. On March 31, 2023, Mr. and Mrs. McNear received correspondence from Stefanie D. Capps, an attorney on behalf of Centauri, acknowledging receipt of the March 17, 2023 correspondence. Ms. Capps advised that Centauri was reviewing the dimensions in the Eagle View Report and would issue any additional payments, if needed as to the roof damages estimate. Centauri has failed to issue any additional payments for the roof. Ms. Capps further advised that with regard to the pavers, the Bastos estimate included upgrades from the previous pavers and payment was issued per the terms and conditions of the policy. Ms. Capps or Centauri failed to explain why Centauri believed the pavers were an update or whether they performed any investigation into whether the original pavers installed were available in the marketplace. Then Ms. Capps misrepresented to Mr. and Mrs. McNear that the March 17, 2023 correspondence was the first time that they had advised that all windows and doors in the home required replacement and that there were interior damages. Ms. Capps further advised that given this “significant supplemental claim,” Centauri requests an additional inspection take place to include a contractor and engineer. Ms. Capp’s statements that March 17, 2023, was the first date that Centauri was advised of damages to the fenestrations and interior of Mr. and Mrs. McNear’s home is a direct misrepresentation of the facts of the claim. The itemized estimate and photographs submitted to Centauri on December 30, 2022, contained the exact same interior damages being claimed by Mr. and Mrs. McNear in their March 17, 2023, correspondence and also included replacement of windows and doors. On April 5, 2023, Ms. Capp’s legal assistant contacted Mr. and Mrs. McNear’s counsel to coordinate an inspection by an engineer and GC from Wareham Construction. That same day Mr. and Mrs. McNear confirmed the proposed date of May 3, 2023, for the inspection and further advised that there were tarps on the roof. On May 2, 2023, Ms. Capp’s legal assistant contacted Mr. and Mrs. McNear’s counsel to confirm the inspection scheduled for May 3, 2023, and further advised that the inspection was to be conducted by Dylan Hanna, GC and Engineer and Ed Longworth, Roofer. She further advised that Mr. Longworth would remove and replace the tarps for the inspection. Mr. and Mrs. McNear’s counsel responded and confirmed the inspection. Following the May 3, 2023, inspection Mr. and Mrs. McNear received no response from Centauri or any representative of Centauri. On or about May 22, 2023, Apex Roofing and Restoration, LLC completed the replacement of the roofing system at Mr. and Mrs. McNear’s home. On June 21, 2023, counsel for Mr. and Mrs. McNear provided a proposal for the replacement of the damaged fenestrations prepared by Renewal by Anderson Windows to Ms. Capps and requested that she forward the proposal to her client and requested to set up a time to discuss resolution of the claim. Ms. Capps failed to acknowledge or respond to the June 21, 2023, correspondence. On July 10, 2023, Mr. and Mrs. McNear submitted to Ms. Capps’ office a proposal for repair of the chimney at the property in the amount of $2,850.63 for payment. Ms. Capps and Centauri failed to acknowledge receipt or otherwise respond to the documentation. On July 26, 2023, now 81 days after the inspection and 205 days since Mr. and Mrs. McNear first provided the Exact Building Consultants estimate including interior and fenestration damage, Mr. and Mrs. McNear’s counsel emailed Ms. Capps again to set up a call to discuss resolution of the claim. In response, Ms. Capps advised that she had not heard back from Centauri and would let counsel know when she did to set up a call. Ultimately, Ms. Capps or Centauri never responded to Mr. and Mrs. McNear and on September 6, 2023, they were forced to file a Property Insurance Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation with the Florida Department of Financial Services. Mr. and Mrs. McNear provided a copy of the Property Insurance Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation to Centauri through Ms. Capps. On September 11, 2023, Centauri acknowledged receipt of the Property Insurance Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation and invoked pre-suit mediation. The pre-suit mediation took place on December 1, 2023, and ended in an impasse. Following the mediation, counsel for Mr. and Mrs. McNear sent correspondence to Ms. Capps requesting a copy of the estimate prepared by the general contractor and engineer that inspected the property on May 3, 2023. Mr. and Mrs. McNear’s counsel further requested that Ms. Capps confirm whether the estimate exceeded the amounts already estimated and paid by Centauri, and if so, requested an explanation in detail of why Centauri had not paid the amounts its own contractor estimated. Ms. Capps failed to provide any response to this correspondence, and instead chose to conceal this information from Mr. and Mrs. McNear. Subsequently, through discovery in litigation, Centauri produced two estimates prepared by Dylan Hanna of Wareham Construction, which were dated June 12, 2023.The first estimate totaled $233,348.46, and the second estimate totaled $271,756.35. Notably, both estimates included 91 squares of tile roofing, rather than the 74 squares estimated and paid by Centauri. Both estimates also included overhead and profit on all the roofing items, unlike the estimate and payment by Centauri. And both estimates included $25,281.80 for removal and replacement of the tile flooring around the pool, where Centauri had refused to tender payment for the full $16,500 incurred by Mr. and Mrs. McNear. The first estimate included $5,758.60 for repairs to the windows and the second estimate included $24,458.12 for replacement of windows. The second estimate also included $22,491.68 for exterior door replacements. The first estimate included interior damages to the dining room, nook, laundry room, family room, bedroom, bathroom, cabana bedroom, and cabana bathroom; and the second estimate included interior damages to the cabana bedroom and bathroom. Centauri was in possession of these estimates prepared by their own retained engineer and general contractor since June 12, 2023, and (1) failed to issue payment to Mr. and Mrs. McNear for undisputed amounts in violation of §626.9541(1)(i)(4); (2) misrepresented to Mr. and Mrs. McNear that additional amounts were not owed to them despite having information in direct contradiction to this in violation of §626.951(1)(i)(3)(b) and §626.9541(1)(i)(2); and (3) failed to attempt in good faith to settle claims when, under all circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard in violation of §624.155(1)(b)(1). Additionally, despite knowing that the roof was replaced, Centauri has willfully and intentionally refused to tender the $13,317.59 withheld depreciation for the roof replacement despite acknowledging that it’s undisputedly owed. Ultimately, Centauri and its counsel chose to conceal these estimates and misrepresent to Mr. and Mrs. McNear that it had paid all amounts owed, forcing Mr. and Mrs. McNear to initiate litigation to recover additional owed amounts under the policy. Throughout the claim process Centauri failed to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to the claim as detailed herein in violation of §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c). The numerous deficiencies in Centauri’s handling of this claim are due to its failure to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims in violation of §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), and its underlying intent to deprive Mr. and Mrs. McNear from the amounts owed under their insurance policy for the goal of maximizing its own profits. Since the beginning of the claim, Centauri has engaged in a pattern of delay and denial that has harmed Mr. and Mrs. McNear. Centauri has not settled the claim when it could and should have done so had it acted fairly and honestly and has failed to take into account the information and evidence that clearly shows/ed additional payment is owed. Centauri has misrepresented pertinent facts and insurance policy provisions and has continually failed to provide a reasonable explanation of the facts and circumstances supporting its refusal to pay and/or settle the claim. Centauri has also failed to respond timely and appropriately to communications from its POLICYHOLDERS. As noted above, Centauri was repeatedly provided with information and documentation showing additional amounts were owed. Centauri ignored this information and instead continued to feign ignorance to avoid paying what was owed. Centauri has refused to pay the policyholder’s claim without conducting a reasonable investigation based upon all available information. Specifically, Centauri ignored the information continually provided by Mr. and Mrs. McNear and its own retained general contractor and engineer. The actions and violations noted above were either done intentionally or as the result of Centauri’s failure to adopt and implement the proper standards for the investigation and adjustment of claims. Overall, Centauri’s investigation and handling of the claim was inadequate and contrary to its obligations under the insurance policy and Florida law. Mr. and Mrs. McNear have done everything legally requested by Centauri to date. To cure the violations set forth in this Civil Remedy Notice, Centauri must now agree to acknowledge its duties and obligations under the law in adjusting its policyholder’s claim, and tender rightfully owed insurance benefits to return Mr. and Mrs. McNear to their pre-loss condition. The concept of insurance is that insurance is the insurer’s granting of timely and prompt indemnity or security against a contingent loss. Florida law defines “insurance” as a contract whereby one undertakes to indemnify another or pay or allow specified amount or a determinable benefit upon determinable contingencies. Inherent is the fact that payment must be made timely and promptly so that the policyholder may mitigate his/her damages and to put him/her back into the position they were in prior to the loss as quickly as possible. Centauri breached this duty. Mr. and Mrs. McNear were and still are forced to expend monies to submit the insurance claim and litigate this dispute, e.g., retaining experts, and legal counsel, to force Centauri to honor its obligations under the insurance policy and to pay all the insurance proceeds due and owing Mr. and Mrs. McNear. Centauri has refused and/or failed to tender all insurance proceeds to Mr. and Mrs. McNear upon demand. Centauri’s refusal and/or failure to settle the insurance claim when under all circumstances it could have and should have done so had it acted fairly and honestly towards the policyholder is wrongful conduct. Mr. and Mrs. McNear contend that Centauri has financially benefited from its improper withholding of due and owing insurance proceeds by profiting from the “float”. Furthermore, Mr. and Mrs. McNear contend that Centauri and/or its representatives financially benefit from such unfair trade practices as a part of their general business practices. Mr. and Mrs. McNear contend that Centauri pressures its agents and/or representatives, through financial incentives, to look for reasons to underpay or deny claims instead of fulfilling their obligations to do the opposite as a general business practice. 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 damages, should Centauri fail to cure the violations set forth in this Civil Remedy Notice within the given cure period. Mr. and Mrs. McNear also intend to seek punitive damages against Centauri as it appears that Centauri’s violations occur with such frequency as to evidence a general business practice and the violations were willful, wanton and malicious and in reckless disregard for the rights of its insureds. While no specific “cure amount” is required for this Civil Remedy Notice to be valid, Mr. and Mrs. McNear will consider the allegations contained herein “cured” if Centauri: (1) Immediately tenders $250,000, with no requirement for Mr. and Mrs. McNear to sign a release. While Mr. and Mrs. McNear are requesting that this be done to “cure” this Civil Remedy Notice, they are willing to consider, and may accept, any reasonable counteroffer. Therefore, if Centauri disagrees with the requests, Mr. and Mrs. McNear request that Centauri make a counteroffer before the end of the “cure period” and provide supporting documentation for any such offer so that Mr. and Mrs. McNear may understand any discrepancies that could exist regarding the estimates.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
sdc@kubickidraper.com 04-11-2025 Undersigned counsel and the law firm of Kubicki Draper represent Centauri Specialty Insurance Company (“CENTAURI”) with regard to the above-referenced claim. This shall serve as CENTAURI’s response to the “Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations” (“CRN”), filed by or on behalf of “Complainant,” GARY AND SUSAN MCNEAR (hereinafter “Complainants” or “Insureds”), with the Florida Department of Financial Services on February 11, 2025. CENTAURI issued Policy Number CH5048469 (the “Policy”) to GARY AND SUSAN MCNEAR (hereinafter “Policyholder” or “Insured”) for 11451 Wellfleet Dr, Fort Myers, Florida (the “Property”). The above-referenced claim was reported to CENTAURI following Hurricane Ian on September 28, 2022. As the basis for filing the CRN against CENTAURI, Complainant asserts multiple allegations of failing to attempt in good faith to settle claims, failing to properly investigate, unfair claim settlement practices, and related allegations. The CRN alleges that CENTAURI has violated multiple provisions of §§624.155, 626.9541Fla. Stat., and/or has otherwise violated Florida law in handling this claim. As a starting point, CENTAURI expressly reserves any and all defenses and objections that may be available whether herein and in the pending lawsuit in the Circuit Court in and for Lee County, Florida, GARY F. MCNEAR AND SUSAN M. MCNEAR AS TRUSTEES FOR THE MCNEAR COMMUNITY PROPERTY TRUST v. CENTAURI case no.: 23-CA-13164. CENTAURI notes that the Complaint listed in the CRN is not the current deeded owner of the property, which is the McNear Community Property Trust. Due to the failure to include all proper parties with an interest in the claim in the CRN, the CRN is invalid. CENTAURI respectfully and categorically denies without limitation each and every allegation of Complainant within the CRN, including but not limited to the alleged violations of the cited provisions of Florida law. CENTAURI further denies any and all stated, implied, and/or unspecified allegations, including but not limited to denying any and all allegations of alleged improper claim handling, inadequate investigation, improper delay or denial, failing to adequately and promptly communicate, failing to provide reasonable explanations, failing to affirm or deny coverage, making misrepresentations, general business practices, unfair or deceptive trade practices, and/or unsatisfactory settlement offers or practices, and the like, whether or not specifically alleged by Complainant’s CRN. At no time has CENTAURI violated any applicable provision of Florida law in the handling of this claim. CENTAURI further objects to the CRN, and the CRN is defective, because it lacks sufficient specificity, as required by §624.155(3)(b)2. Fla. Stat. It also contains demands that are improper, ambiguous, vague or otherwise impermissible. For example, it fails to adequately identify or explain how CENTAURI violated the provisions of Florida law cited in the CRN, how the alleged violations relate to the facts of the specific claim, and/or what actions and amount(s) are being demanded to remedy the alleged violations. In fact, the entirety of the CRN’s purported factual basis consists of largely conclusory assertions skewed towards an adversarial intent versus a recitation of the true facts involved and the amounts truly owed under the policy. A CRN is not intended to leave the carrier to play a “guessing game” as to the basis for the violations being alleged or cure being demanded. Yet that is precisely what Complainant’s conclusory CRN does. The lack of specificity in the allegations deprives CENTAURI of any meaningful notice and ability to respond and renders the CRN invalid on its face. To be clear, again, as further discussed herein, CENTAURI denies Complainants’ allegations of inadequate investigation/evaluation, improper claim handling, and the like. The point here is that Complainants have crafted a CRN with demands which negate any meaningful ability to cure the alleged violations and which thereby render the “cure” provisions merely illusory. Defects such as these thwart the fundamental purpose of the CRN, which is to give the insurer the opportunity to “cure” the alleged violations within the 60-day statutory period. This is contrary to the purpose and requirements of Florida law, including the notice and safe harbor or “cure” provisions of §624.155, Fla. Stat., which are a necessary prerequisite to any future bad faith action against UPC. See, e.g., Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). Due to the lack of specificity and other defects, the CRN is invalid and cannot serve as a condition precedent to any action for alleged bad faith against CENTAURI under §624.155, Fla. Stat., or otherwise under Florida law. Subject to and without waiving these denials and objections, and subject to and without waiving any other available defenses, CENTAURI states that it has not violated any applicable provision of Florida law in handling this claim or in any way related to this claim or in any litigation that may be related to this claim. Rather, CENTAURI has at all times acted in good faith, fairly, honestly and with reasonable diligence in its handling and investigation of the claim, including with regard to any payments and/or denials made with respect to the alleged losses, or in any way related to this matter, including any litigation that may be related to this claim. Complainants “cherry pick” facts from the claim chronology in the CRN without providing the full story, which if full presented, shows one of clear dispute of the price and scope of a covered loss, which is not bad faith. CENTAURI is within its rights under to defend itself in a lawsuit and to have a disagreement as to the scope of damages. The insured reported the claim on September 28, 2022. The damage was reported as roof tiles falling off, no water damage yet. A field adjuster was assigned and inspected the property on October 7, 2022. He estimated $178,138.06 in damages. The field adjuster did not observe any signs of water entry near windows and doors in the home. A supplemental payment was made and his total estimate was raised to $188,071.26. As of December 12, 2022, total payments to the insured were $153,691.94 with depreciation of $14,379.32 withheld. On October 12, 2022, Apex Roofing submitted to CENTAURI via email a notice of hold harmless agreement, direct payment authorization, assignment of rights and benefits, and initial estimate for Apex to replace the roof. A letter of representation for Merlin Law Group was submitted on October 28, 2022 which also requested a copy of the policy. Merlin Law Group was provided a copy of the policy on November 7, 2022. In correspondence dated December 30, 2022 the insureds submitted supplemental claims through their counsel for paver replacement on the pool deck, and a chimney cap repair. A supplemental payment of $11,891.03 was made February 17, 2023. Complainants incorrectly assert that a supplemental payment related to the supplemental claim first submitted on December 30, 2022 is owed interest when payment was issued February 17, 2023, within 90 days of the supplemental claim. The Exact Building Consultants estimate provided in the December 30, 2022 correspondence from insureds’ counsel was the first time that interior damages were claimed beyond a small drywall patch in the attached cabana related to a burst pipe that had been included in the field adjuster’s original estimate. Complainants state in the CRN that they stated they intended to seek owed depreciation with submission of an Exact Building Consultants estimate included in the December 30, 2022 correspondence from Merlin Law Group. Complainants claim that this was attached to the CRN, though the attachment was not sent to CENTAURI with the CRN. The Exact Building Consultants estimate was simply that, an estimate from a contractor often used by Apex Roofing and Merlin Law Group in disputed, litigated claims. There was no proof of repairs completed as required by the contract provisions in order to secure payment of depreciation. No proof of repairs was provided by the insureds prior to filing of suit. In correspondence dated March 17, 2023 from insureds’ counsel, they enclosed a report from Moisture Intrusion Solutions which stated that all windows and doors needed to be replaced as a result of the hurricane. In response, through correspondence from its counsel dated March 31, 2023, CENTAURI requested a re-inspection by a general contractor and engineer to evaluate the increased scope of damages claimed. A mutually coordinated inspection took place on May 3, 2023. Subsequent to the inspection, counsel for both parties had a telephone conference on May 31, 2023 to discuss possible resolution of the remaining disputed issues in the claim. According to insured counsel, a window bid was necessary to engage in further discussions. The window bid was sent by the insureds via their counsel on June 21, 2023 and totaled over $260,000. The engineer retained by CENTAURI disagreed that the windows and doors needed to be replaced, and rather found that those windows that had damage from the hurricane could have glazing repairs. The parties attempted further informal negotiations, but ultimately a notice of intent to initiate litigation was sent by insureds on September 6, 2023. The parties participated in a pre-suit mediation on December 1, 2023 but resulted in an impasse. Suit was filed five days later on December 6, 2023. Contrary to the allegations in the CRN that CENTAURI did not attempt to make payments to the insureds based on the information gathered in the May 3, 2023 inspection, CENTAURI made multiple substantial offers throughout negotiations. Any allegation that CENTAURI attempted to conceal estimates is patently false. The investigation done by Dylan Hanna was for the purposes of evaluation of a disputed claim. Throughout the claim, offers were made to the insureds based on the investigation. At such time that the estimates created by Dylan Hanna were determined to be something to be presented in litigation rather than a mere consulting expert, they were produced to the insureds counsel. As demonstrated throughout the interactions with Complainants, the intention appeared all along to be to pursue litigation, making resolution unlikely. Apex Roofing, also a client of Merlin Law Group, while releasing their assignment of benefits, have maintained a letter of protection seeking to be reimbursed from the litigation. The parties have continued to negotiate in suit, but ultimately resolution has not been reached. Clearly, as shown by the facts as recited by both parties, there is a bona fide dispute as to the scope and price of damages remaining to be owed under the Policy. The purpose of a CRN is not to pay what the insured demands, but rather the amount actual due and owing under the Policy. Complainant here confuses the issue with conclusory and factually misleading allegations without accounting for and stating the true amounts owed under the Policy with CENTAURI. This further invalidates the CRN. Further, as the Complainants and their counsel are aware, Mrs. Capps is outside counsel hired to represent CENTAURI. Clearly, personally naming defense counsel and personally attacking defense counsel in the CRN is an attempt to harass and use the CRN to try and gain a tactical advantage in a pending lawsuit. This renders the CRN invalid since per the statute, the purpose of a CRN is to provide the carrier an opportunity to evaluate and “cure” the claims in the CRN; the CRN is not meant to be a sword to be wielded by Complainant counsel in a pending lawsuit. Litigation is an inherently adversarial process and valid defenses must be maintained to avoid waiver. An insurer has every right to defend a lawsuit. See e.g. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Marotta, 125 So.3d 956 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)(holding that during Complainant’s closing argument “comments urged the jury to punish Allstate for defending against [the Complainant’s] claim in court and exceeded the scope of permissible argument.”). Such a tactic must not only be unequivocally condemned as improper by any court reviewing this CRN, but also renders the CRN a legally nullity. The “cure” demanded by the insured in the CRN is vague and allows “a reasonable counteroffer”. This invalidates the CRN as it leaves CENTAURI to guess as to what is owed, and further shows that the CRN is a tool for leverage in negotiations in the pending litigation rather than a valid claim related to claims handling. Nonetheless, as it has throughout, CENTAURI remains willing and ready to resolve the claim in full, and as a result would offer $150,000 to resolve in response to the insured request within the CRN to make an offer. CENTAURI remains willing to review and consider any additional information which Complainant believes to be relevant to this matter and requests that any such additional information or documentation be provided immediately. CENTAURI will evaluate any additional information or documentation it receives in good faith. In any event, Complainant’s allegations in the CRN amount, at most, to a mere disagreement regarding the amount, price and scope of any alleged losses and/or the scope of coverage for the alleged losses. Disagreement regarding such matters is not bad faith and cannot serve as a basis for any future bad faith claim against CENTAURI. Accordingly, CENTAURI objects to and denies the allegations of the CRN. The objections and denials herein are not necessarily exhaustive and this response shall not prevent CENTAURI from asserting any other appropriate objections, denials, and/or defenses related to this claim and/or CRN. Moreover, due to the objections and defects discussed herein, the Department should strike and/or reject the CRN as invalid. As a final matter, it should be emphasized that the subject policy issued by CENTAURI is governed by the policy’s terms, conditions, and exclusions together with any endorsements. This CRN response does not waive any such provisions of the policy. Furthermore, any action taken by or on behalf of CENTAURI or its authorized representative(s), whether in the past or future, to investigate the alleged loss, to adjust any claim or request for payment, or in any way related to or arising out of the subject claim or loss, shall not waive any of the terms, conditions, or any other provisions of the policy. Thank you for your time and attention in this matter. Please contact us if you have any questions or require additional information. STEFANIE D. CAPPS, ESQ.
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