Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     806398
Filing Accepted:  2/12/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
MING AND KWANG DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION   First Name  
Street Address * 2950 TAMIAMI TRIAL N. STE. 200
City, State Zip * NAPLES, FL 34103
Email Address * INSURED@MCDONALDBARNHILL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   MING AND KWANG DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION   First Name  
Policy # * JTA5007032 Claim #* 222906
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* GONTRUM First Name * RYAN Initial L
Street Address* 505 S. MAGNOLIA AVENUE
City, State Zip* TAMPA , FL 33606
Email Address * TAL@MCDONALDBARNHILL.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   GREAT LAKES INSURANCE SE
NAIC Company Code
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* JEAN LITTLE AND RYAN CLAUSON
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.
 
626.9541(1)(i)(1) Attempting to settle claims on the basis of an application, when serving as a binder or intended to become a part of the policy, or any other material document which was altered without notice to, or knowledge or consent of, the insured.
626.9541(1)(i)(2) A material misrepresentation made to an insured or any other person having an interest in the proceeds payable under such contract or policy, for the purpose and with the intent of effecting settlement of such claims, loss, or damage under such contract or policy on less favorable terms than those provided in, and contemplated by, such contract or policy.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e) Failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and, as to partial coverage, the dollar amount or extent of coverage, or failing to provide a written statement that the claim is being investigated, upon the written request of the insured within 30 days after proof-of-loss statements have been completed.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f) Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of the basis in the insurance policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g) Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h) Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary.
626.9541(1)(i)(4) Failing to pay undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed under first-party property insurance policies within 60 days after an insurer receives notice of a residential property insurance claim, determines the amounts of partial or full benefits, and agrees to coverage, unless payment of the undisputed benefits is prevented by factors beyond the control of the insurer as defined in s. 627.70131(5).
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(j) Altering or amending an insurance adjuster’s report without: (I) Providing a detailed explanation as to why any change that has the effect of reducing the estimate of the loss was made; and (II) Including on the report or as an addendum to the report a detailed list of all changes made to the report and the identity of the person who ordered each change; or (III) Retaining all versions of the report, and including within each such version, for each change made within such version of the report, the identity of each person who made or ordered such change;
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

***ADDITIONAL STATUTORY PROVISIONS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN VIOLATED AS FOLLOWS:*** §624.155(1)(a) Any person may bring a civil action against an insurer when such person is damaged: By the commission of any of the following acts by the insurer: 1. Section 626.9541(1)(i), (o), or (x); §624.155(1)(a) Any person may bring a civil action against an insurer when such person is damaged: By the commission of any of the following acts by the insurer: 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 towards its insured and with due regard for his interests; 2. Making claims payments to insures or beneficiaries not accompanied by a statement setting forth the coverage under which payments are being made; or 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. §624.155 (5) No punitive damages shall be awarded under this section unless the acts giving rise to the violation occur with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice and these acts are: a. Willful, wanton, and malicious; b. In reckless disregard for the rights of any insured; or c. In reckless disregard for the rights of a beneficiary under a life insurance contract; (8) The damages recoverable pursuant to this section shall include those damages which are a reasonably foreseeable result of a specified violation of this section by the authorized insurer and may include an award or judgment in an amount that exceeds the policy limits. §627.70131 Insurer’s duty to acknowledge communications regarding claims; investigation (1)(a) Upon an insurer’s receiving a communication with respect to a claim, the insurer shall, within 14 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 which reasonably prevent such acknowledgement. If the acknowledgement is not in writing, a notification indicating acknowledgement shall be made in the insurer’s claim file and dated. A communication made to or by an agent of an insurer with respect to a claim shall constitute communication to or by the insurer. (b) As used in this subsection, the term “agent” means any person to whom an insurer has granted authority or responsibility to receive or make such communications with respect to claims on behalf of the insurer. (c) This subsection shall not apply to claimants represented by counsel beyond those communications necessary to provide forms and instructions. (2) Such acknowledgement shall be responsive to the communication. If the communication constitutes a notification of a claim, unless the acknowledgement reasonably advises the claimant that the claim appears not to be covered by the insurer, the acknowledgement shall provide necessary claim forms, and instructions, including an appropriate telephone number. (3) Unless otherwise provided by the policy of insurance or by law, within 10 working days after an insurer receives proof of loss statements, the insurer shall begin such investigation as is reasonably necessary unless the failure to begin such investigation is caused by factors beyond the control of the insurer which reasonably prevent the commencement of such investigation. (4) For purposes of this section, the term “insurer” means any residential property insurer. (5) Within 90 days after an insurer receives notice of a property insurance claim from a policyholder, the insurer shall pay or deny such claim unless the failure to pay such claim is caused by factors beyond the control of the insurer which reasonably prevent such payment. Failure to comply with this subsection constitutes a violation of this code. ***Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation*** Great Lakes Insurance SE (“Great Lakes”) failed to adequately adjust and pay the claim covered under the subject insurance policy. Specifically, but not limited to, Great Lakes failed to properly apply the Insuring Clause provision of the policy. In addition to the policy sections specifically cited herein, any endorsements or changes to said sections are relevant to the Insured’s claim for civil remedy. There may be additional policy language relevant to this violation that may be discovered.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Ming and Kwang Development Corporation’s claim results from damage from Hurricane Ian which occurred on or about September 28, 2022, to their property located at 2950 Tamiami Trial N. Ste. 200, Naples, Florida 34103. The property was insured under policy number JTA5007032. The wind and water from the storm caused significant damage to the exterior of the property, including the roof, downspouts, and siding. The claim was reported to Great Lakes Insurance SE (“Great Lakes”) and was assigned claim number 222906. Great Lakes assigned Jean Little as the desk adjuster and sent Ryan Clauson to inspect the property as a field adjuster. Mr. Clauson prepared an estimate which completely ignored all interior damage, failed to include any exterior siding, and underpriced the repairs to the roof systems. This estimate totaled $101,108.36, and after deductible, Great Lakes issued only $34,362.46 for the loss. The Insured hired Stellar Public Adjusting Services (“Stellar”) to represent their interest in the claim. Stellar inspected the property and prepared an estimate totaling $715,690.52. Subsequently, Stellar sent their estimate, photos, and other documentation to Great Lakes. In response, Great Lakes sent a new field adjuster, Tony Roberts, to inspect. Mr. Roberts prepared a new estimate which improved greatly on the scope of Mr. Clauson’s estimate, but which still failed to fully scope and price the loss. This new estimate totaled $300,928.37 and demonstrated the inadequacy of Great Lakes’ original estimate. Pursuat to this estimate, Great Lakes issued $1760,139.20. After this payment was made, Stellar and the Insured invoked appraisal to resolve the dispute, but Great Lakes repeatedly attempted to impose requirements on the appraisal that were not consistent with the policy. This continued until Great Lakes decided to file suit for declaratory judgment against the Insured, forcing them to incur legal fees and other additional costs. Great Lakes’ course of action has continuously delayed indemnification while the Insureds’ costs continue to rise. In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. Great Lakes has breached this duty in the adjustment of this loss by refusing to provide proper indemnity, unnecessarily delaying resolution of the claim, and failing to take into consideration documentation provided to them which would support compensation. Great Lakes has failed to create and implement adequate guidelines for proper investigation of claims handling and for training and supervision of employees and representatives which have resulted in some of the statutory violations set forth above. Great Lakes charged the Insured a substantial premium for these coverages but has refused to tender proper payment when under all circumstances it could have and should have done so had it acted fairly and honestly. Additionally, it appears this is done companywide. The Insureds have been forced to consider legal counsel to protect their interests. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, Great Lakes must: 1. Immediately tender all insurance monies due to the Insureds for the loss; 2. Act fairly and honestly towards the Insured and with due regard for her interests in attempting to settle the claim; 3. Pay statutory interest on the amount of unpaid contractual damages from the date the claim was reported; 4. Cease and desist all present and future bad faith actions with regard to the Insureds’ claim; Failure to cure all defects during the 60-day safe harbor period may result in additional extra-contractual damages.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
agirard@bakerdonelson.com 04-11-2025 Dear Sir or Madam: Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz PC has been retained by Great Lakes Insurance SE (“GLISE”) to respond to that certain Civil Remedy Notice (“CRN”) assigned File Number 806398 by the Florida Department of Financial Services and filed by Ming and Kwang Development Corporation (the “Insured”), concerning Policy # JTA5007032, with an effective period from May 14, 2022 to May 14, 2023 (the “Policy”). In response to the CRN, GLISE states as follows: As a preliminary matter, GLISE denies all allegations set forth in the Insured’s CRN, submits that no such violations have occurred, and maintains the CRN should be rejected and returned by the Department of Financial Services due to its failure to comply with Florida law. The CRN is form-pled, generic, intentionally vague, and replete with self-serving and unsupported conclusions of fact and determinations of law. In fact, the scant facts stated are belied by the information and documentation comprising the claim file materials, and which fail to show a bona fide claim for bad faith conduct. The Insured is wholly mistaken concerning material aspects of the claim adjustment, and it is apparent it is, at a minimum, misinformed about the actions GLISE took in adjusting this claim. The material misrepresentations and oversights in the CRN reflect an inexcusable failure to comprehend even the most basic facts surrounding this claim and the Policy, and the CRN should accordingly be rejected as a sham. The CRN form requires that the Complainant, “Pursuant to Section 624.155, F.S. please indicate all statutory provisions alleged to have been violated.” The Insured’s CRN cites twelve different statutes as allegedly violated, accusing GLISE of attempting to settle claims on the basis of an application; making a material misrepresentation to an insured or any other person having interest in the proceeds payable under the Policy; failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims; misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue; failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims; denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations; failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims; failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of the basis in the insurance policy for denial of a claim; failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim; failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary; failing to pay undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed; and altering or amending an insurance adjuster’s report. These statutory duties have absolutely no bearing on the instant dispute, and their citation unduly burdens GLISE and hinders its ability to reasonably understand the Insured’s complaints. Moreover, the facts identified in the CRN, or lack thereof, do not support the alleged violation of these statutory provisions, and the Insured’s generic claims of bad faith conduct do not sufficiently apprise GLISE of the actual circumstances upon which this CRN is based. The vague and generic nature of the violations alleged highlights the suspect purpose behind the CRN and severely hinders GLISE’s ability to meaningfully respond. The CRN should be rejected and returned accordingly. As for the requirements under Fla. Stat. § 624.155(3)(b)(4), the CRN broadly cites to the ‘Insuring Clause’ of the Policy, without identifying the “specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.” This vague and overbroad citation fails to sufficiently inform GLISE as to what specific provisions of the Policy were violated and, as a result, what actions would be needed to correct the violations, hindering GLISE’s ability to meaningfully respond. As a result, the CRN should be rejected and returned. The CRN’s lack of specificity extends to the “factual” allegations that purportedly gave rise to the issues complained of by the Insured. Florida’s form for Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations instructs complainants, in relevant part, as follows: “To enable the insurer to investigate and resolve your claim, describe the facts and circumstances giving rise to the insurer’s violation as you understand them at this time.” The Insureds’ CRN falls short of these instructions and merely sets forth vague, generic, unsupported, form-driven, and inaccurate allegations and self-serving conclusions – all of which GLISE denies. The CRN’s failure to specify the facts that purportedly triggered its filing demonstrates yet another reason why the CRN should be rejected and returned. Accordingly, GLISE respectfully requests the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations be rejected for the reasons cited above. Notwithstanding the foregoing, GLISE now responds to the few facts alleged in the CRN. As noted above, the Insured is Ming and Kwang Development Corporation, while the Policy was in effect from May 14, 2022 through May 14, 2023 and provides $1,334,918 in building coverage with a 5% ($66,745.90) wind/hail deductible. The Policy covers direct physical loss, and states that losses are paid on a replacement cost basis only once the lost or damaged property is actually repaired or replaced. The Policy insures the real property located at 4584 Enterprise Ave., Naples, Florida 34104 (the “Property”). The Insured provided notice of Hurricane Ian loss on or about October 21, 2022. Adair Horne & Associates (the “TPA”) was assigned to adjust and administer the claim, and Ryan Clauson (the “IA”) was assigned to inspect the loss. The initial inspection took place on November 12, 2022. Following the inspection, the IA prepared an estimate of damages totaling $101,108.36 (RCV), which amounted to a net claim payment to the Insured of $34,362.46, after application of the $66,745.90 wind/hail deductible (depreciation was not withheld). As such, a coverage letter and check for $34,362.46 were issued to the Insured on or about March 2, 2023. After the Insured, through its public adjuster, Stellar Public Adjusting (the “PA”), submitted a repair estimate totaling $715,690.52 (RCV) and demanded a supplemental payment of $681,328.06, the TPA sent another adjuster, Tony Roberts (the “Second IA”), to reinspect the Property. Following the reinspection on May 10, 2023, the Second IA prepared a supplemental estimate totaling $300,928.37 (RCV), which amounted to a supplemental net claim payment to the Insured of $170,139.20 after application of recoverable depreciation ($29,680.81), the deductible ($66,745.90), and the prior payment ($34,362.46). Thereafter, on September 19, 2023, the TPA engaged a professional engineer with Donan Engineering (the “Engineer”) to inspect the Property and determine the cause and origin of the alleged damage to the metal siding. The Engineer concluded: (i) the metal siding was not damaged by wind or wind-borne debris; and (ii) the dents and impact marks on the lower portions of the metal siding on the east, south, and west-facing elevations of the building were caused by inadvertent man-made damage from vehicles and/or human activity. After receipt of the Engineer’s report, the TPA issued correspondence to the Insured on November 29, 2023, advising that after consideration of the Engineer’s findings, no additional covered wind damage was found. Thus, GLISE denied coverage for the metal siding, casings, downspouts, and trims. On November 30, 2023, the PA sent correspondence to the TPA, demanding appraisal of the loss. The Insured appointed James Gilleland of Kenedy Claims Adjusting, LLC as its appraiser (the “Insured’s Appraiser”), and the TPA identified Kelon Crocker as GLISE’s appraiser (the “Carrier’s Appraiser”). Thereafter, the Insured’s Appraiser and the Carrier’s Appraiser agreed to appoint Justin Pyka of Pyka & Associates Incorporated as the appraisal umpire (the “Umpire”). The Carrier’s Appraiser then requested, on behalf of GLISE, that the appraisal award form (the “Appraisal Award”) delineate between replacement cost value damages (“RCV”) and actual cash value damages (“ACV”), so that GLISE could appropriately pay the award in accordance with the subject Policy and Florida law. Specifically, the Carrier’s Appraiser sent the Insured’s Appraiser and the Umpire a Declaration of Appraiser and Selection of Umpire Form for execution that provided the Appraisal Award would be delineated between RCV and ACV. However, the Insured’s Appraiser and Umpire refused to agree to delineate the damages. Consequently, GLISE was compelled to file a Petition for Declaratory Relief (the “Petition”) with the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida – Fort Myers Division, requesting the Court determine whether GLISE was within its rights to request delineation of the appraisal form. Within the Petition, however, GLISE clearly stated that “GLISE has no objection to proceeding with the appraisal process while this claim for declaratory relief is resolved, and does so without waiver of any rights, remedies, privileges, and immunities it has under the Policy or applicable law.” (See Petition, D.E. 01, at ¶ 61, Case No. 2:24-CV-00451-JLB-KCD). The Petition survived Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (See D.E. 13 and 15), and Respondent filed its Motion for Summary Judgment (D.E. 32) on February 7, 2025. GLISE filed its cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (D.E. 37) on March 17, 2025, and as of the date of this response, the parties’ Motions for Summary Judgment are still pending. The CRN’s specific allegations are largely just a list of statutory duties, some mirrored by the previously cited statutes, others wholly new, including not attempting in good faith to settle claims, failing to promptly settle claims, and failing to promptly acknowledge claims. Curiously, as part of its form outline, the Insured cites to § 624.155, Fla. Stat. to support allegations of bad faith against GLISE. However, as Insured’s counsel knows or should know, § 624.155, Fla. Stat. provides that a bad-faith claim “shall not lie” until the Insured “has established through an adverse adjudication by a court of law that the property insurer breached the insurance contract and a final judgment or decree has been rendered against the insurer.” The statute continues that “payment of an appraisal award does not constitute an adverse adjudication under this section.” Id. (emphasis added). This is especially significant here, because, regardless of the outcome of either of the pending Motions for Summary Judgment, the parties will undoubtedly proceed to appraisal and an appraisal award will be entered. In other words, there will be no adverse adjudication in this claim and, as a result, there cannot be a bad faith claim pursuant to § 624.155, Fla. Stat. Thus, the CRN has revealed itself to be an instrument of bad faith, filed for the improper purpose of coercing GLISE into settlement. This fact, coupled with the Insured’s timing of filing the CRN only five days after its Motion for Summary Judgment, highlight the impropriety of this filing. Furthermore, the CRN’s allegations are entirely form and generic, boiling down to the Insured’s claims that GLISE has “failed to adequately adjust and pay the claim,” and has “repeatedly attempted to impose requirements on the appraisal that were not consistent with the policy.” Though there is undoubtedly a present dispute over the scope and price of the loss, which is why the claim is in appraisal, the Insured has offered no allegations, details, or evidence to support a finding that it is owed more than what has already been paid in accordance with the express terms, conditions, and exclusions of the Policy, much less provided a basis by which it could support a claim for bad faith. As noted above, GLISE conducted a thorough investigation as part of its adjustment, providing comprehensive findings as to the nature and origin of the Insured’s loss and the reasons for why certain aspects of the claim were not covered under the Policy. Further, since appraisal was demanded, GLISE has always been agreeable to proceeding with appraisal, even indicating as such in its Petition. Indeed, the entire crux of GLISE’s Petition is that delineation is necessary to ensure that GLISE can pay the award in accordance with the Policy and Florida law. In other words, GLISE could not have imposed requirements that are “not consistent with the policy,” when that was the exact opposite of GLISE’s intent in filing the Petition in the first place. Moreover, if GLISE’s request for delineation was so entirely inconsistent with the Policy that GLISE’s actions could rise to the level of bad faith (as the Insured suggests), it would stand to reason that the Petition would not have survived the Motion to Dismiss stage – which it did. To cure the violations, the CRN demands GLISE: (1) immediately tender all insurance monies due to the Insured for the loss; (2) act fairly and honestly towards the Insured and with due regard for its interests in attempting to settle the claim; (3) pay statutory interest on the amount of unpaid contractual damages from the date the claim was reported; and (4) cease and desist all present and future bad faith actions with regard to the Insured’s claim. In response to the Insured’s vague, non-quantifiable demands, GLISE asserts that GLISE’s adjustment has been complete and multi-faceted, carefully examining all aspects of the Insured’s loss through the aid of multiple well-qualified and trained professionals. GLISE has provided prompt and thorough communications with the Insured and its representatives throughout the entire adjustment process and has completed the adjustment in accordance with Florida law and the express terms and conditions of the Policy. With respect to the Insured’s demand for payment, GLISE states that, as the Insured is aware, GLISE is presently awaiting resolution of the pending Petition and the appraisal process before a determination of any payments owed to the Insured can be made. GLISE further asserts that all monies paid to the Insured on the claim have been and will continue to be paid in accordance with the Policy and Florida law. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, GLISE respectfully requests that the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations be rejected and returned. While this response is meant to be comprehensive, it is based upon the limited, vague allegations set forth in the Insured’s CRN and information made available to GLISE to date. Accordingly, this response to the Insured’s CRN is not necessarily exhaustive and shall not preclude GLISE from asserting any other valid reason(s) for the rejection and return of the Insured’s CRN. Further, GLISE expressly reserves all available rights and defenses available to it under the subject insurance policy, as well as Florida law. GLISE has always complied with the provisions of the applicable policy of insurance, while consistently acting fairly, honestly, and in good faith towards the Insureds, with the utmost regard for their interests. Neither this response, nor any actions taken by GLISE, should be construed as a waiver of any rights or defenses available under the subject policy, or Florida law. We trust this correspondence adequately addresses the matters raised in the Insured CRN, but please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions, concerns or requests for additional information concerning this matter. Sincerely, David B. Levin cc: via email Ming and Kwang Development Corporation c/o Andrew P. McDonald, Esq. and Ryan L. Gontrum, Esq.; amcdonald@mcdonaldbarnhill.com; rgontrum@mcdonaldbarnhill.com.
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