Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     806738
Filing Accepted:  2/13/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
FURMAN   First Name   DIANA
Street Address * 3535 S. OCEAN DRIVE, UNIT 2705
City, State Zip * HOLLYWOOD, FL 33019
Email Address * FURM88@AOL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   FURMAN   First Name   DIANA
Policy # * 1503-2003-3669 Claim #* FL24-0113571
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* ORLANDO First Name * ANTHONY Initial J
Street Address* 1000 W. CASS STREET
City, State Zip* TAMPA , FLORIDA 33606
Email Address * AORLANDO@OLDERLUNDYLAW.COM, DJP-PARALEGALS@OLDERLU
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10861
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* ANDY WEST, JENNIFER RICHIEZ, AND ALL OTHER ADJUSTERS, SUPERVISORS, MANAGEMENT AND INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH OR RETAINED BY UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY INVOLVED IN THE CLAIM.
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Unfair Trade Practice
Other : Failure to properly investigate claim and with due regard to Insured’s interest
* 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)(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)(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.

ADD’L STATUTES VIOLATED §627.70131(2) §627.70131(7)(a) The Insured may not be in possession of a complete copy the applicable policy of insurance, however, the specific policy language relevant to the violations outlined below is contained within Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company’s Homeowners policy, Policy No. 1503-2003-3669, issued to the Insured including, but is not limited to, the following: Coverage A-Dwelling provisions (UPCIC HO6 15 04 23) Coverage C-Personal Property provisions (UPCIC HO6 15 04 23) Coverage D-Loss of Use provisions (UPCIC HO6 15 04 23) - Additional Living Expenses Additional Coverages provisions (UPCIC HO6 15 04 23) - Debris Removal - Reasonable Emergency Measures - Ordinance Or Law - “Fungi”, Wet or Dry Rot, Or Bacteria Unit Owners Cov. A Special coverage endorsement (UPCIC 402 15 05 18) The Declarations Page (UPCIC HO DEC 15 03 23) Loss Payment or Loss Settlement provisions (UPCIC HO6 15 04 23) Duties in Event of Loss Policy provisions (UPCIC HO6 15 04 23) The insurance policy's definition sections (UPCIC HO6 15 04 23) The insurance policy's exclusion of coverage provisions (UPCIC HO6 15 04 23) Please advise if there are other applicable policy provisions that are not cited above but would provide coverage to the Insured for June 12, 2024, accidental and/or fortuitous water discharge loss.
 
* 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. UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY (“UPCIC”) has breached this duty by its failure or refusal to acknowledge its Insured’s claim of loss. UPCIC has failed to create and implement adequate guidelines for proper investigation to evaluate claims handling and for training and supervision of employees resulting in statutory violations as set forth above. UPCIC has failed and/or refused to thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigate and evaluate the Insured’s insurance claim for damages. To date, notwithstanding the Insured’s pleas, UPCIC has continued to refuse to acknowledge its obligation to acknowledge and pay the full amount of its Insured’s claim. This complaint is made on behalf of the Insured, Diana Furman (“MS. FURMAN”). Further, this complaint is a statement that notice is hereby given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized and pursuant to Florida Statute §624.155. In consideration of the premium paid to it by MS. FURMAN, UPCIC issued a Homeowners policy, Policy No. 1503-2003-3669 (hereinafter referred to as “the Policy”), to MS. FURMAN wherein the insurance policy provided coverage for all losses, including accidental and/or fortuitous water discharge, except those losses which were expressly excluded. The policy was in full force and effect at the time the damage occurred as a result of accidental and/or fortuitous water discharge, and the ensuing damages as a direct result thereof, to the insured premises located at 3535 S. Ocean Drive, Unit 2705, Hollywood, FL 33019, on or about June 12, 2024. MS. FURMAN’S insured property sustained damages to the interior of the home, including but not limited to, the drywall, paint, ceiling, and flooring, in the master bedroom, great room, dining room, closets, etc. The full scope of the damages are outlined in MS. FURMAN’S submitted estimates. MS. FURMAN timely notified UPCIC of the damages and opened a claim pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Policy. In response, UPCIC assigned the claim to its representative to adjust and investigate the loss, as well as a field adjuster to inspect the damages. On or about July 2, 2024, UPCIC’S field adjuster, Andy West, visited the insured property and performed a cursory and inadequate investigation of the damaged property. The estimate of damages prepared by Mr. West totaled $2,218.59 Replacement Cost Value (“RCV”) / $1,980.50 Actual Cash Value (“ACV”) This total amount was less than MS. FURMAN’S deductible and therefore UPCIC attempted to make no payment for the loss. Concerned that UPCIC had no intention to fairly investigate and adjust her claim, MS. FURMAN retained the services of an insurance claim professional, Margaret Krichevets from Best Public Adjusters, Inc. (BPA), to assist in submitting her claim to UPCIC which would adequately and fairly detail all the damages sustained as a result of the loss. In contrast to UPCIC’S inspection estimate, MS. FURMAN’S damage estimate from BPA, totaling a loss of $200,838.80 RCV in Dwelling damages (Coverage – A), was much more inclusive of the full extent of damages sustained to her insured property, as detailed above. On or about July 26, 2024, MS. FURMAN submitted to UPCIC an Executed Sworn Statement in Proof of Loss, totaling $200,838.80 RCV (Coverage – A), which, after deductible and after applying the Policy’s limits, came out to a NET amount of $123,152.00 claimed for the loss. Following the loss, MS. FURMAN retained EMS Dry Titan, LLC. d/b/a Dry Titan (Dry Titan), to perform emergency mitigation services on her insured property, in an effort to prevent additional damages from occurring. On or about August 9, 2024, UPCIC submitted a Payment Letter to MS. FURMAN for $3,050.80 in Dwelling damages (Coverage – A), which did not explain any basis for why it was being paid. Previously, UPCIC’S estimate was less than the deductible, which indicated that somewhere after its initial estimate, it prepared another revised estimate which came out to be over the deductible. On or about August 19, 2024, MS. FURMAN submitted an Appraisal Demand letter to UPCIC, to which UPCIC rejected. With regards to MS. FURMAN’S insurance claim determination process, UPCIC has misrepresented the full extent of damages sustained to her insured property, and has delayed her ability to restore it to pre-loss condition. To date, MS. FURMAN has not received any reinspection offers from UPCIC. To date, MS. FURMAN has not received any settlement offers from UPCIC. To date, UPCIC has failed to tender any supplemental insurance benefits. UPCIC has admitted that MS. FURMAN sustained covered damages as a result of the accidental and/or fortuitous water discharge loss that occurred on or about June 12, 2024 but has denied tendering all owed insurance benefits to MS. FURMAN. Pursuant to Florida Statute §626.9541(1)(i)(4), UPCIC is required to pay undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed under first-party property insurance policies within 90 days after UPCIC received notice of the residential property insurance claim, determine the amounts of partial or full benefits, and agree 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). As UPCIC has failed to do so, UPCIC has wrongfully denied coverage. UPCIC violated Florida Statute §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) when it denied a claim “without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information.” Here, UPCIC denied MS. FURMAN’S claim without conducting a reasonable investigation based upon available information when it partially denied the claim (by way of claiming that a majority of the observed damages were under deductible) and advised that the amount of damages UPCIC estimated for the Property was $2,218.59, which is wholly inadequate to put the Property in its pre-loss condition. UPCIC’s representatives performed a cursory and inadequate sub-standard property inspection, which resulted in a conclusory claim evaluation. Thus, UPCIC violated Fla. Stat. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d). After initially contending that the damages were under deductible, UPCIC would tender a $3,050.80 payment to MS. FURMAN, but fail to explain how it got this amount and refuse to provide the updated estimate from its field adjuster. Thus, UPCIC violated §626.9541(1)(i)3f by Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of the basis in the insurance policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement. Florida Statute §626.9541(1)(i)(2) provides that an insurer is in violation of the statute when there is, “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.” UPCIC made a material misrepresentation to MS. FURMAN in violation of Florida Statute §626.9541(1)(i)(2) when it denied coverage for a substantial scope of damages to the Property based on observations which were not fully explained and/or policy exclusions which were not identified. UPCIC provided no explanation/substantive evidence for how its adjuster came to that conclusion and his low-ball amount provided for in the estimate, further violating Florida Statute § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), which condemns an insurer for “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.” UPCIC is also in violation of Florida Statute § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g) for “Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim”, as no explanation was provided to MS. FURMAN as to what evidence determined that the damages were allegedly not covered. UPCIC’s correspondence merely provided a conclusory determination made by an outcome oriented and poorly trained adjuster, providing no further substantive evidence justifying a rational coverage determination. UPCIC’s above-conduct is also a violation of Fla. Stat. §624.155(1)(b)(1). An insurer violates Fla. Stat. §624.155(1)(b)(1) when it “[does not] attemp[t] 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.” Here, UPCIC’s wholly inadequate investigation and subsequent estimate did not come close to what would be necessary for MS. FURMAN to be made whole again Since the beginning of the claim, UPCIC has engaged in a pattern of delay, denial, and reckless disregard for MS. FURMAN’S rights. The actions of UPCIC listed herein have been continuing in nature and given the totality of the circumstances, which includes UPCIC’S adjustment, actions and/or omissions post the filing of this CRN. MS. FURMAN contends that given the past experience in this matter with UPCIC, it is reasonably foreseeable that UPCIC’S current actions will extend to its entire conduct in the handing of her claim, including the acts or omissions of UPCIC and/or its representatives, until the final resolution of her claim. As such, MS. FURMAN contends adequate notice has been given should UPCIC’S actions and violations listed herein continue after the expiration of this notice. UPCIC has failed and/or refused to settle the claim when it could and should have done so had it acted fairly and honestly towards MS. FURMAN, and has failed to take into account the information and evidence provided that contradict its decisions. Even upon receipt of additional and supporting evidence to the contrary, UPCIC has continued to stand by its claim denials. As such, MS. FURMAN does not anticipate UPCIC will rescind its denial of her claim. UPCIC’S conduct has been reckless and unfair to MS. FURMAN, and has caused and continues to cause additional damages throughout the property. This is evidenced by the delay in paying the claim and the failure of UPCIC to evaluate the claim in total. To date, UPCIC has failed and/or refused to provide MS. FURMAN with all the insurance benefits due and owing and has not tendered the full amount needed to repair the Property despite knowing that MS. FURMAN has sustained covered damages to her insured property. As UPCIC must admit, it is implied within every insurance policy a duty of good faith and fair dealings. In an insurance contract, each party is prevented from interfering with the other’s right to benefit from the contract. The obligations of good faith and fair dealings encompass qualities of decency and humanity inherent in its responsibilities as a fiduciary. UPCIC is bound to conduct itself with the utmost good faith for the benefit of MS. FURMAN. However, UPCIC has failed to comply with the obligations in connection with this claim and has never looked at the claim or the contract for insurance with good faith and fair dealing. Instead, UPCIC has looked for ways not to pay the claim in full, or at all, and these actions have been to the detriment of MS. FURMAN. The adjusters assigned to this claim have a duty to adjust and treat all claims equally. Since the beginning of this claim the representatives on behalf of UPCIC have approached this investigation in a manner prejudicial to MS. FURMAN. UPCIC is using either untrained or improperly trained adjusters in connection with this claim. UPCIC should have been adjusting the loss with MS. FURMAN but instead, it was looking for ways not to pay the claim at all, or pay the claim in full. If UPCIC handles all the claims in the manner in which MS. FURMAN’S claim was adjusted, then it is improperly handling all claims. UPCIC has refused and/or failed to comply with The Policy’s cooperation and/or “Loss Payment” provision. Under The Policy, UPCIC was to timely tender undisputed insurance benefits to MS. FURMAN. UPCIC has failed and/or refused to timely tender owed insurance benefits, undisputed or otherwise. This is a breach of The Policy. UPCIC has refused and/or failed to cooperate and/or “Adjust the Loss” by cooperating with MS. FURMAN during the claims adjustment process in compliance with The Policy’s “Loss Payment” provision. This is a breach of The Policy. The concept of insurance is that insurance is the insurer’s granting of timely and prompt indemnity or security against a contingent loss. Florida Statute §624.02 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 MS. FURMAN may mitigate her damages and to put her back into the position she was in prior to the loss as quickly as possible. UPCIC has breached this duty. UPCIC has refused and/or failed to tender all insurance proceeds to MS. FURMAN upon demand. UPCIC’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 MS. FURMAN is wrongful conduct. Furthermore, MS. FURMAN contends that UPCIC’S adjusters and/or representatives financially benefit by such wrongful conduct. Accordingly, UPCIC has a contractual and statutory obligation to investigate all possible bases which might support MS. FURMAN’S claim and cannot deny a claim without thoroughly investigating the foundation for its denial or basis for withholding insurance benefits. UPCIC violated its obligations here. - UPCIC has a contractual and statutory obligation to make a perfunctory investigation, not ignoring evidence that would support MS. FURMAN’S claim. UPCIC violated its obligations here. - UPCIC has a contractual and statutory obligation not to look the other way when confronted with facts revealing the possibility of coverage and resisting reasonable interpretations of its policy. UPCIC violated its obligations here. - UPCIC has a contractual and statutory obligation not to deny the claim based on standards known to be impermissible or on an interpretation contrary to established law. UPCIC violated its obligations here. These actions and violations were either done intentionally or as the result of UPCIC’S failure to adopt and implement the proper standards of the investigation and adjustment of claims. Overall, UPCIC’S investigation of the claim was inadequate and contrary to its obligations under the insurance policy and Florida law. MS. FURMAN has done everything legally requested by UPCIC to date. To cure the violations set forth in this Civil Remedy Notice, UPCIC must now agree to acknowledge its duties and obligations under the law in adjusting its insured’s claim, and tender rightfully owed insurance benefits to return MS. FURMAN to her pre-loss condition. Further, to cure the violations set forth in this Civil Remedy Notice, MS. FURMAN hereby requests that UPCIC tender at this time, or prior to the expiration of the statutory cure period, the amount of MS. FURMAN’S damage estimate and demand which accurately reflects the true nature and extent of MS. FURMAN’S damages. Therefore, UPCIC should tender $133,825.90 (less any prior payments, depreciation, excess policy limits, and/or deductible) in insurance benefits at this time. Although MS. FURMAN has made a demand for payment in the amount of $133,825.90 (less any prior payments, depreciation, excess policy limits, and/or deductible) and has provided UPCIC with all the necessary documentation in support thereof, she is still willing to consider and to potentially accept any reasonable counter-offer made by UPCIC. Therefore, if UPCIC is not in agreement with MS. FURMAN’S reasonable demand for payment of her rightfully owed insurance benefits being submitted at this time, MS. FURMAN hereby requests that UPCIC now make a reasonable counter-offer before the expiration of the cure period. MS. FURMAN still hopes that her claim can be resolved amicably. The concept of insurance is that insurance is the insurer’s granting of timely and prompt indemnity or security against a contingent loss. Florida Statute §624.02 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 MS. FURMAN may mitigate her damages and to put her back into the position she was in prior to loss as quickly as possible. UPCIC breached this duty. This notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized and pursuant to Florida Statute §624.155, including any and all bad faith/extra contractual, should UPCIC fail to cure the violations set forth in this Civil Remedy Notice within the given cure period. While no specific “cure amount” is required for this Civil Remedy Notice to be valid, MS. FURMAN will consider the allegations contained herein “cured” if UPCIC, without any requirement for a release: (1) Immediately tenders the amount of MS. FURMAN damage estimate in the amount of $133,825.90 (less any prior payments, depreciation, excess policy limits, and/or deductible), which accurately reflects the true nature and extent of the damages to the Dwelling; (2) Agrees to reimburse MS. FURMAN for her expenses incurred by having to retain a public adjuster to present her claim; and (3) Immediately tenders the amount of statutory interest due and owing to MS. FURMAN pursuant to Florida Statute §627.70131(5)(a). (4) Immediately provides MS. FURMAN with the documentation UPCIC has used and/or continues to contend, supports the claim determination made by UPCIC in the adjustment of MS. FURMAN’S claim. Specifically, UPCIC must provide MS. FURMAN with its claim estimate(s), supporting photographs and/or videos, as well as any and all reports of any expert(s) or other individuals retained on behalf of UPCIC upon which UPCIC has relied on in reaching and/or further supporting its coverage determination in MS. FURMAN’S claim. MS. FURMAN continues to remain open to a fair and reasonable settlement offer from UPCIC in an effort to avoid additional delay, costs and expenses, and hereby request the same prior to the expiration of the statutory “cure” period. MS. FURMAN has provided UPCIC with all necessary estimates, documentation, etc. in support of the claim. UPCIC must act fairly and honestly in its response to MS. FURMAN’S request for a prompt, fair and reasonable settlement offer and resolution of the claim.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
oc1102@universalproperty.com 04-02-2025 April 2, 2025 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING Florida Department of Financial Services Bureau of Consumer Assistance Civil Remedy Section 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0322 Re: DFS File No.: 806738 Filing Date: 2/13/2025 Complainant(s): Diana Furman Insured(s): Diana Furman Policy No.: 1503-2003-3669 Claim No.: FL24-0113571 Dear Sir/Madam: Please allow this to serve as Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company’s (“Universal”) formal response to the above-referenced Civil Remedy Notice (“Notice”) filed by attorney, Anthony J Orlando, on behalf of Complainant, Diana Furman (also referenced as the “Insured”.) The Notice alleges violations of Sections 624.155, 624.02, 626.9541, and 627.70131, Florida Statutes. Universal denies the allegations contained in the Notice. Additionally, Universal denies that it violated these or any statutes, Florida law or policy provisions regarding the claim adjustment of this matter. With that said, Universal asserts that the Notice fails to comply with the specific notice and information requirements as set forth in Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation document provisions, Section 624.155, Florida Statutes and Florida law. The Notice is deficient as a matter of law as it fails to comply with Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. See 316, Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Ins. Co., 625 F. Supp. 2d 1187 (N.D. Fla. 2008); Rousso v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., 2010 WL 7367059, (S. D. Fla. 2010); Heritage Corp. of South Fla. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, P.A., 580 F. Supp. 2d 1294 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co., 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). Pursuant to Section 624.155(3)(b), Florida Statutes the Notice “shall state with specificity” the following information: 1. The statutory provision, including the specific language, which the authorized insurer allegedly violated; 2. the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation; 3. the name of any individual involved in the violation; 4. reference to specific policy language that is relevant to the violation, if any...; 5. a statement that the Notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section. Moreover, the Department of Financial Services (“DFS”), created form DFS-10-363, which lays out 15 requirements that the Complainant must respond to with specificity. The Florida Supreme Court holds that Section 624.155, Florida Statutes “must be strictly construed.” Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1283 (Fla. 2000). Strict construction is appropriate as “this statute is in derogation of the common law.” Id. When interpreting a statute in derogation of the common law, “[a] court will presume that such a statute was not intended to alter the common law other than as clearly and plainly specified in the statute.” Time Ins. Co., Inc. v. Burger, 712 So. 2d 389, 393 (Fla. 1998). Such an interpretation would mean that statutory bad faith cases cannot proceed unless the Complainant has specifically complied with all statutory requirements. Pin-Pon Corp. v. Landmark American Ins. Co., 500 F. Supp. 3d 1336 (S.D. Fla. 2020); Julien v. United Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 311 So.3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). To begin, the Notice fails to meet the requirement of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, on several grounds. First, the Notice fails to satisfy the requirement to identify the person or persons representing the insurer most responsible for or knowledgeable of the facts giving rise to the allegations. In order to comply with the requirements of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, the Complainant must name the individual(s) involved with specificity as it relates to the purported violation(s) to allow Universal to properly investigate the allegations. The Notice lacks the requisite specificity as required by Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. Here, the Notice states “ANDY WEST, JENNIFER RICHIEZ,” however, the Notice fails to include any specificity as to how the named individuals have knowledge of the facts giving rise to any purported allegation(s) and/or what, if anything, they did or failed to do as it relates to the claim at issue. The Complainant also attempts a “catch-all” by stating “ALL OTHER ADJUSTERS, SUPERVISORS, MANAGEMENT AND INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH OR RETAINED BY UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY INVOLVED IN THE CLAIM,” which significantly prejudices Universal, as Universal has not been properly notified by Complainant of the individuals that purportedly committed statutory violations or the specific statutory violations any individual purportedly committed. Further, the statement clearly defeats the requirement in the DFS form to provide specificity in order to put the carrier on notice and provide an opportunity to investigate any allegation with a specific individual. Specific identification of a person or persons with the most knowledge within Universal is of particular importance because, the Complainant alleges that Universal “misrepresent[ed] pertinent facts and/or policy provisions” in the Notice. The Notice, however, fails to include the requisite specificity as to whom made any misrepresentations or when any of these misrepresentations occurred. Accordingly, the Notice is insufficient as a matter of law. Second, the Notice fails to satisfy Section 624.155(3)(b)(4), Florida Statutes, in that it fails to reference specific policy language relevant to any alleged violation. Instead, the Notice broadly references policy sections but fails to specify any facts regarding how the cited policy language applies to the Insured’s claim and/or how they were allegedly violated. The Notice is broad in scope and fails to identify “specific policy language” relevant to any specific alleged violation. Therefore, it is unclear what, if any, policy language pertains to any allegation. The Notice also references the “Duties in Event of Loss Policy provisions” of the policy, however, this provision applies to the Insured’s obligations under the Policy and therefore is not applicable to the carrier. General, vague and overbroad references to potential or possible policy language does not satisfy the specificity required by Section 624.155(3)(b)(4), Florida Statutes. As such, the Notice is deficient as a matter of law. Third, with respect to the requirement to set forth with specificity the “facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation,” the Notice fails to allege any specific conduct on the part of Universal that would violate any policy provision or statute. The Notice asserts general allegations containing boilerplate language rather than providing specific facts to support any alleged statutory violation. As an example, the Notice states, “UPCIC has failed to create and implement adequate guidelines for proper investigation to evaluate claims handling and for training and supervision of employees resulting in statutory violations as set forth above. UPCIC has failed and/or refused to thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigate and evaluate the Insured’s insurance claim for damages.” However, the Complainant fails to specify any facts to support these conclusory statements. Universal properly investigated the Insured’s claim and issued its coverage determination, pursuant to the terms of the Policy. Moreover, the Notice alleges, “UPCIC’S field adjuster, Andy West, visited the insured property and performed a cursory and inadequate investigation of the damaged property.” The Complainant failed to provide any facts to support its allegation that Universal’s representative’s investigation of the property was inadequate. Furthermore, the Complainant fails to provide sufficient facts to support its boilerplate assertions outlined throughout the Notice and provide specific facts of how Universal allegedly violated any policy provision or statute. The Notice further alleges that Universal “made a material misrepresentation to MS. FURMAN…” However, the Notice does not set forth any facts regarding any misrepresentations made by Universal and does not identify the person or persons who made such misrepresentations. The Notice does not state sufficient facts to support the Complainant’s misrepresentation allegations or any of the allegations contained therein. Additionally, the Complainant alleges that Universal has breached Section 624.02, Florida statutes. The Notice is replete with conclusory statements and supposition rather than specific facts to support any of the alleged misconduct or statutory violations in support of its conclusory allegations. The failure to provide specific facts to support the conclusory allegations of misconduct hinders Universal’s ability to appropriately investigate the allegations in the Notice. It is evident that the statement of facts falls short of the specificity required by Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. As a result, the Complainant fails to comply with the requirements provided in Section 624.155(3)(b)(2), Florida Statutes. Lastly, the Notice does not provide a proper means whereby Universal can “cure” the alleged defects, without paying benefits which are not due and owing to the Insured. The purpose of a Civil Remedy Notice is to provide the insurer an opportunity to “cure” the alleged wrongdoing. Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 753 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). However, Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, does not impose on an insurer the obligation to pay whatever an insured demand. Talat, 753 So. 2d at 1282. To the contrary, the Florida Supreme Court holds that the scope of what can be “cured” in responding to a Civil Remedy Notice, is limited to contractual amounts due to the insured. See Talat, 753 So. 2d at 1281. Complainant demands extra-contractual damages including, but not limited to requiring Universal to “reimburse MS. FURMAN for her expenses incurred by having to retain a public adjuster to present her claim...” The Notice fails to provide Universal an opportunity to “cure” the alleged violations without paying extra-contractual damages. Universal is only obligated to pay contractual amounts owed to cure a civil remedy. See id. at 1278. In summary, as outlined above, the Complainant fails to respond to each of the fields set forth on the DFS Form with the requisite specificity, including but not limited to the failure to satisfy the requirement to identify the person or persons representing the insurer most responsible for or knowledgeable of the facts giving rise to the allegations, the failure to reference specific policy language relevant to the alleged violation, the failure to allege any specific conduct on the part of Universal that would violate any policy provision or statute, and the failure to provide a proper cure. Therefore, the Notice is legally deficient and fails to satisfy the condition precedent to filing a bad faith action. Pin-Pon Corp. v. Landmark American Ins. Co., 500 F. Supp. 3d 1336 (S.D. Fla. 2020); Julien v. United Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 311 So.3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). For the aforementioned reasons, the Notice is deficient as a matter of law. Nonetheless, and without waiving the above-referenced deficiencies, the following shall provide you with the facts and circumstances regarding this claim, which shall demonstrate that Universal has not violated any Policy terms or statutory provisions. On June 13, 2024, Universal received notice from the Insured’s public adjuster, Best Public Adjusters, Inc., the insured location had damage which occurred on June 12, 2024. Universal inspected the property and documented any visible damage. Thereafter, Universal advised the Insured it accepted coverage for the claim, however the estimated cost for repairs fell below the applicable policy deductible. As outlined above, the alleged statutory violations set forth in the Notice lack factual support and are without merit. We trust that the foregoing is sufficient to advise you of Universal’s position regarding this matter and fully respond to the alleged violations in the Notice filed by the Complainant. Sincerely, /s/ Ozzy Cudila Ozzy Cudila, Esq. Associate General Counsel
Acknowledgement
* The submitter hereby states that this notice is given in order to perfect the rights of the person(s) damaged to pursue civil remedies authorized by Section 624.155, Florida Statutes.

Before submitting a Notice using this system, please verify that all text has been entered correctly and completely. Once the Notice has been submitted, the text cannot be changed or deleted.




DFS-10-363
Rev. 10/14/2008