Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     806370
Filing Accepted:  2/11/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
FFC PROPERTY GROUP, LLC   First Name  
Street Address * 2938 SANIBEL BLVD., ST.
City, State Zip * JAMES CITY, FL 33956
Email Address * WITHHELD
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   FFC PROPERTY GROUP, LLC   First Name  
Policy # * DNAPF017983-00 Claim #* 11461 / 1120817
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* WALLACE First Name * BLAKE Initial
Street Address* 8635 W. HILLSBOROUGH AVE., STE. 401
City, State Zip* TAMPA , FLORIDA 33615
Email Address * BLAKE@KLINGLAW.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):* LORETTA JAMGOCHIAN AND SCOTT HILL
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.
624.155(1)(b)(3) Except as to liability coverages, failing to promptly settle claims, when the obligation to settle a claim has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
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.

The specific policy provisions the carrier violated are the loss payment provision, the loss settlement provision, and the coverage provisions. Specifically, the loss payment provision states “we will adjust all losses with you.” Yet, the carrier did not consult the homeowner in deciding who would investigate the cause or amount of damages, and what the ultimate payment should be. On December 19, 2024, a certified copy of the policy was requested by counsel of the insured. To date of the filing of this civil remedy notice the policy has not been provided by the carrier. This is in violation of F.S. §626.9541(1((i)(3)(c) as the carrier has failed to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. F.S. §627.70131(1)(a) provides that upon an insurer’s receiving a communication with respect to a claim, the insurer shall, within 7 calendar days, review and acknowledge receipt of such communication unless payment is made within that period of time or unless the failure to acknowledge is caused by factors beyond the control of the insurer.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

February 11, 2024 Sent Via Email Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London Subscribing to Policy #DNAPF017983-00 jetpaclaims@johnseastern.com RE: Insured : FFC PROPERTY GROUP, LLC (hereinafter, “Insured”) Policy # : DNAPF017983-00 Claim # : 11461 / 1120817 Property Address : 2938 Sanibel Blvd., St. James City, FL 33956 Persons most knowledgeable of facts giving rise to the Violations: Loretta Jamgochian, Scott Hill Dear Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London Subscribing to Policy #DNAPF017983-00: Please find enclosed the civil remedy notice filed for the above referenced claim. This notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by Florida Statute §624.155 As discussed in greater detail in the notice, the carrier has not attempted in good faith to settle the claimant’s claim when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its claimant and with due regard for its interests. The carrier has done everything possible to delay the claim and refuses to provide any sort of status of the claim. Furthermore, the carrier is required to properly investigate and adjust claims and cannot place that burden upon the insured. This was made clear by the appellate court and the Florida Supreme Court in Allstate Indemnity Co. v. Ruiz, 899 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 2005) (“The Legislature has clearly chosen to impose on the insurance companies a duty to use good faith and fair dealing in processing and litigating the claims of their insured…”). The carrier was put on notice of the insured’s Hurricane Ian – Flood claim on October 17, 2022. Since the commencement of the claim the carrier has failed to timely communicate with the insured. It is obvious that the carrier is not attempting to pay for the clearly covered damages owed under the policy. The carrier assigned Scott Hill, who is not an engineer, to inspect the loss. On December 6, 2022, the carrier made the unilateral determinations that the damages were covered would total to the amount of $860,887.44 for full repairs to the property after to the application of the deductible and once the recoverable depreciation was fully recovered. Moreover, in reaching those conclusions, Lloyds, London failed to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. There was no explanation whatsoever as to how Lloyds, London determined which items of damage were caused by covered or excluded perils. Furthermore, the carrier’s failure to assign a qualified and experienced engineer further violates F.S. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a). Moreover, as the carrier denied coverage without conducting a reasonable investigation based upon available information, the carrier violated F.S. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d). Additionally, the carrier failed to describe how it arrived at the amount it withheld for depreciation. The policy does not explain how depreciation or actual cash value is calculated, and the carrier did not explain the facts or applicable law in relation to the payment made. This is a violation of F.S. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f). Florida Statute 627.70131(3)(e) requires the carrier to provide an estimate within 7 days after the estimate is generated by the insurer’s adjuster. However, it is clear that Lloyds, London failed to provide the estimate in the prescribed time period. Instead waiting until over forty-four (44) days passed prior to providing the estimate. The insurer must send the policyholder a copy of any detailed estimate of the amount of the loss within 7 days after the estimate is generated by an insurer’s adjuster. The carrier’s failure to produce the estimate generated by Scott Hill in a timely manner is in further violation of F.S. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) as the carrier failed to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to the claim. The insured has been compelled to obtain invoices and receipts totaling in the amount of $1,200,611.52 that would be needed to repair the property back to its pre-loss condition. The insured has complied with all the carrier’s requests to date. The carrier has still refused to pay the fully covered amount owed under the policy, instead electing to stand by its unilaterally determined deficient valuation of the loss while denying the rest of the loss. The carrier has still refused to pay the fully covered amount owed under the policy, instead electing to stand by its unilaterally determined deficient valuation of the loss. This is in violation of F.S. 624.155(1)(b)(1) and 624.155(1)(b)(3) as the carrier is clearly placing the company’s interests before the claimant’s interests and not attempting in good faith to settle claims. It is clear that the carrier is not treating the claimant with good faith claims conduct; failing to pay a claim clearly owed; not adjusting the claim and evaluating the loss properly, promptly and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to the claimant; failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims and placing the company’s interests before the claimant’s interests; not training, supervising or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made; refusing to pay the full amount owed to the insured despite the fact that the damages are covered under the policy; looking for ways to delay full recovery or any recovery to the insured; and refusing to provide coverage for the claimant’s loss in a timely manner. The Carrier’s actions are in violation of Florida Statutes §§ 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), 627.4137(1), and Fla. Stat. §627.70131. The actions taken by Lloyds, London in the handling/adjustment of the insured’s claim were willful, wanton, malicious, and in reckless disregard for the rights of any insureds and occur with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice, and further are in violation of Florida Statutes §624.155 and F.S. §626.954. Indeed, when performing a search on the Florida Department of Financial Services website’s Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation page the results of searches of violations of the statutes referenced herein by the carrier returned the following results thereby indicating that the number of times they occur rise to the level of a general business practice, and warrant punitive damages: §624.155(1)(b)(1) = 998 §624.155(1)(b)(3) = 733 §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) = 933 §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) = 754 §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f) = 659 Based upon the above-referenced acts and omissions, the carrier has breached the insurance contract by failing to pay the amount due to the insured, by denying coverage which existed under the insurance contract with the insured in the instant dispute, by failing to adjust the loss with the insureds, and by failing to perform an adequate investigation. These are violations and breaches of the policy language cited above. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, the carrier must: 1) Pay the complete covered loss in the amount of $1,200,611.52 less any applicable policy deductible and prior payments; 2) Pay the statutory interest on the amount of unpaid damages from the date of loss to the date payment is finally made and 3) provide the insured’s counsel with a certified copy of the policy and all claim documents. A copy of this letter and filed form submitted to the FDFS has been emailed to the carrier. The specific policy provisions the carrier violated are the loss payment provision, the loss settlement provision, and the coverage provisions. Specifically, the loss payment provision states “we will adjust all losses with you.” Yet, the carrier did not consult the homeowner in deciding who would investigate the cause or amount of damages, and what the ultimate payment should be. On December 19, 2024, a certified copy of the policy was requested by counsel of the insured. To date of the filing of this civil remedy notice the policy has not been provided by the carrier. This is in violation of F.S. §626.9541(1((i)(3)(c) as the carrier has failed to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. F.S. §627.70131(1)(a) provides that upon an insurer’s receiving a communication with respect to a claim, the insurer shall, within 7 calendar days, review and acknowledge receipt of such communication unless payment is made within that period of time or unless the failure to acknowledge is caused by factors beyond the control of the insurer. If you have any questions or concerns, please send all correspondence via email to Blake@klinglaw.com and Jorlyn@KlingLaw.com to ensure a prompt response. We ask that all correspondence be done via email rather than regular mail. Should you need to send something regular mail, please advise us prior to sending same via the emails above.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
Ltapia@berklawfirm.com 04-09-2025 April 9, 2025 VIA E-MAIL: BLAKE@KLINGLAW.COM Blake Wallace, Esq. 8635 W. Hillsborough Ave., Ste 401 Tampa FL 33615 Re: Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation Insured: FFC Property Group LLC Policy Period: June 21, 2022 to June 21, 2023 Date of Loss: September 28, 2022 Claim No.: 11461/1120817 Location: 2904-2938 Sanibel Blvd, Saint James City, FL Cause of Loss: Hurricane Ian Policy No.: DNAPF017983-00 DFS Notice No.: 806370 Accepted by DFS: February 11, 2025 Dear Mr. Wallace: We represent Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London subscribing to Policy No. DNAPF017983-00, Hamilton Insurance DAC, HDI Global Specialty SE and Great lakes Insurance SE (“the Insurers”), the commercial property flood insurers for FFC Property Group LLC (the “Insured”), under the above referenced policy number with effective dates of June 21, 2022 to June 21, 2023 (the “Policy”). We write in response to the Insured’s Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation (the “Notice”) submitted to the Department of Financial Services, Division of Consumer Services (“the “Department”) on behalf of the Insured. The Notice bears filing number 806370 with an acceptance date of February 11, 2025. At the outset, we note that the CRN technically deficient as it is improperly directed solely to “Underwriters at Lloyds, London." However, as expressly provided in the Declarations and the “Security” schedule contained in the subject Policy, Hamilton Insurance DAC, HDI Global Specialty SE and Great Lakes Insurance SE are also separate named participants and insurers under the subject Policy of insurance. Further, the Notice identifies the type of insurance as “Commercial Property & Casualty” when in fact the subject policy is a flood policy. In the Notice, filed on behalf of the Insured, it is alleged that the Insurers violated various Florida Statutes with regard to the Insured’s claim under the Policy for damages arising from Hurricane Ian at the property located at 2904-2938 Sanibel Blvd, Saint James City, FL (the “Property”), which reportedly occurred on September 28, 2022. The Notice generally alleges the “Reasons for Notice” as “claim denial, claim delay, unsatisfactory settlement offer, and unfair trade practice.” Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, sets forth the requirement that the Notice shall state with specificity all of the following: (1) the statutory provision allegedly violated, including the specific language of the statute; (2) the facts and circumstances that give rise to a violation of those statutes referenced in the civil remedy notice; (3) the name of any individual involved in the alleged violation; and (4) the specific policy language that is relevant to the alleged violation. Florida courts have interpreted section 624.155(3)(b) to require that a civil remedy notice be specific enough to provide insurer notice of wrongdoing so an insurer can timely cure the alleged violations within sixty days. See, e.g., Heritage Corp. of S. Fla. v. Nat. Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 580 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1298-99 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (insured did not state with specificity the facts giving rise to the specific statutory violation so as to put insurer on notice of wrongful acts being alleged); Nowak v. Lexington Ins. Co., 464 F. Supp. 2d 1248, 1251-52 (S.D. Fla. 2006) (holding that the insured could not proceed with a cause of action based upon an alleged violation of section 626.9541 when that statute was not specifically listed in the CRN); Valenti v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., No. 8:04-CV-1615-T-30TGW, 2006 WL 1627276, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 6, 2006) (disallowing certain actions for bad faith that were not specific enough to put insurer on notice of alleged violations). As an initial matter, the Insurers deny that they or any of their representatives engaged in any prohibited conduct or violated any of the statutes referenced in the Notices with respect to the Insured’s claim. The Insurers acted in good faith, without delay, and with due regard for the Insured’s interests at all times during the investigation, handling, and adjustment of the claim. The Insurers note that the Insured has listed 5 alleged violations by the Insurers, but does not provide sufficient factual allegations to support the alleged violations. In fact, some of the allegations are internally inconsistent and irrelevant to the facts of the claim. The Notice fails to allege the specific policy language relevant to the violation in accordance with Florida Statute §624.155(3)(b)(4), but only states the loss payment provision as “we will adjust all losses with you”. This failure to identify any specific policy provision allegedly relevant to the purported violations prevents the Insurers from addressing any issues regarding the policy and is another reason why it does not comply with F.S. § 624.155. The Notice alleges that the Insurers denied coverage “without conducting a reasonable investigation”; however, the claim was not denied. Rather, the Insurers determined coverage and notified the Insured of that fact on December 6, 2022. In the December 6, 2022 letter, the Insurers advised the Insured of the payment for covered claims in the amount of $758,358.78 ACV with a copy of the adjuster’s estimate and instructions on how to recover the withheld depreciation once the costs are incurred. On November 16, 2023, the Insured contacted the adjuster regarding recovery of the withheld depreciation. The adjuster requested the repair records and re-inspected the property on July 9, 2024. The Insured provided records that included business ledges, repairs to sidewalk, parking lot and boat dock. On September 12, 2024, the Insurers made a payment in the amount of $102,528.66 for withheld depreciation and advised the Insured that the repairs for loss of business income, sidewalks, parking lots and boat docks were excluded by the Policy. The Notice alleges that the Insurers failed to comply with Florida Statutes 627.70131(1)(a) and 627.70131(3)(e). However, the statute defines an “insurer” as any residential property insurer per Florida Statute 627.70131(5)(b). Thus, Florida Statute 627.70131 is not applicable in this case as the subject policy is a commercial flood policy. Additionally, the Civil Remedy Notice contains “cures” that are not available under the policy of insurance or under the Civil Remedy Statute such as attorney’s fees, interest, adjusters’ fees, or costs. “Cures” including a demand for “all statutory interest,” which are improper pursuant to Florida case law, specifically the case of Talat Enterprises, Inc., v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 753 So.2d 1278, 1281 (Fla. 2000). The Talat case provides that the scope of what can be "cured" is limited to the alleged non-payment of the contractual amount due our Insured. Talat also commented that "[i]t naturally follows that for there to be a "cure," what had to be "cured" is the non-payment of the contractual amount due the insured. In the context of a first-party insurance claim, the contractual amount due the insured is the amount owed pursuant to the express terms and conditions of the policy after all of the conditions precedent of the insurance policy in respect to payment are fulfilled....” As a result, only the demanded “cures” relating to the payment for covered damages are proper and legal – the remaining “cures” are improper remedies and contrary to Florida law. The Notice also alleges that the Insurers’ actions were “willful, wanton, malicious, and in reckless disregard” and occur with such frequency to indicate a general business practice. Regardless of the number of CRNs allegedly filed against Lloyd’s London, it has been uniformly held by the courts that CRNs are inadequate as a basis to substantiate a claim of a general business practice. Notably, a CRN is nothing more than a statutory condition precedent to pursuing a bad faith claim. They have been repeatedly rejected as a basis of evidence of a general business practice. See Niagara Distribs. v. N. Ins. Co., 210 U.S. District Lexis 152056; see also Royal Marco Point 1 Condo. Ass’n. v. QBE Ins. Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14521 (M.D. Fla February 2, 2011) wherein the court stated that the record in this case shows civil remedy notices were filed against QBE when in fact nothing wrong had occurred. Thus, the civil remedy notices do not demonstrate bad faith nor warrant punitive damages.. Finally, please be advised that the Insurers do not waive, but rather expressly reserve the right to raise any and all available objections and defenses to this matter. Furthermore, neither this letter, nor any action taken by, or on behalf of the Insurers in connection with the Insured’s claim should be construed as a waiver of any rights, privileges, or defenses available under the Policy or Florida law. To the contrary, the Insurers expressly reserve all rights, privileges, and defenses available to them under the subject Policy or Florida law. Should you have any questions regarding this matter or need anything further, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned counsel. Kind regards, /s/ Laura C. Tapia cc: Via Electronic Filing Florida Department of Financial Services Bureau of Consumer Assistance, Civil Remedy Section Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0322
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