Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     807892
Filing Accepted:  2/21/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
MAGALY ACEVEDO AND JUAN RENTAS   First Name  
Street Address * 3834 BITTERN COURT
City, State Zip * ORLANDO, FL 32822
Email Address * CLAY@THEKRFIRM.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   MAGALY ACEVEDO AND JUAN RENTAS   First Name  
Policy # * H36-251-590271-70 Claim #* HD000-057071530-01
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* KUHN First Name * CLAYTON Initial
Street Address* 2110 WEST PLATT STREET
City, State Zip* TAMPA , FLORIDA 33606
Email Address * CLAY@THEKRFIRM.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 23043
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* ANY AND ALL PERSONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CLAIMS HANDLING FROM LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Unfair Trade Practice
Claim Delay
* Statutory provision(s) which the insurer allegedly violated.
 
624.155(1)(b)(1) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
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)(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.

THE POLICY LANGUAGE RELEVANT TO THE VIOLATIONS INCLUDES ALL APPLICABLE LOSS PAYMENT AND COVERAGE PROVISIONS OF POLICY NUMBER H36-251-590271-70 INCLUDING THE DECLARATIONS PAGE AND ALL ENDORSEMENTS TO THE POLICY, WITH RESPECT TO COVERAGES A, B, C, AND D. ADDITIONALLY, ANY SECTIONS RELIED UPON BY THE INSURER IN ITS DENIAL TO FULLY PAY THE CLAIM, INCLUDING THE DUTIES IN THE EVENT OF LOSS PROVISIONS AND THE POLICY'S EXCLUSION OF COVERAGE PROVISIONS.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Magaly Acevedo and Juan Rentas (hereinafter “Insureds”) are homeowners insured with an all-risks policy issued by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (hereinafter “Carrier”). On or about June 1, 2024, Insureds’ home located at 3834 Bittern Court, Orlando, Florida 32822 sustained significant damage as a result of a water event. Specifically, Insureds’ property sustained water damage due to a plumbing failure. The discharge of water caused damage to various areas of the interior of Insureds’ property including, but not limited to, the bathroom, master bathroom, and half bathroom. The Loss was covered under Insured’ policy issued by Carrier. The Insureds mitigated damages by contacting Eco-Pro Restorations SA LLC who performed mold testing and Loss Restorations LLC who performed mitigation services on the subject property. All of the relevant documents were provided to Carrier. Insureds promptly reported the claim and fully cooperated with all requests for inspections. Carrier assigned Claim No. HD000-057071530-01 to the loss. The Insureds have fully cooperated with Carrier’s investigation of the claim, including providing all requested documentation and complying with all post-loss policy conditions. Specifically, the Insureds, with assistance from their public adjuster, submitted an estimate for $21,300.71, which was a fair and reasonable assessment for the repair/replacement of damages. Eco-Pro Restorations SA LLC has an outstanding balance in the amount of $3,100.00 for their mold testing. Loss Restorations LLC has an outstanding balance in the amount of $4,320.32 for their mitigation services. Carrier failed to retain qualified experts necessary to identify the repairs necessary to restore the property to its pre-loss condition. Despite Insureds providing Carrier with a detailed estimate, Carrier failed to pay Insureds the amount necessary to repair/replace the damaged property, less the applicable deductible. Instead, Carrier denied full coverage for the loss by not making a coverage decision within the time frame given by the State of Florida. This has become a common business practice for Carrier. Despite the Insureds submitting all of the necessary paperwork and following the guidelines set out by Carrier for these types of claims, Carrier has allowed the claim to pass the 90-day coverage decision period in violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(4), Florida Statutes. It has been well over 90 days since reporting the loss and Carrier continues to delay the claim. They have yet to provide any facts or explanations for its failure to properly communicate with the Insureds and refuses to act in accordance with its statutory and contractual obligations. Under the circumstances surrounding this claim, had Carrier acted fairly and honestly toward the Insureds and with due regard for the Insureds’ interests, Carrier could and should have attempted in good faith to settle this claim. Carrier did not and, instead, dishonestly, and unfairly placed its own interests well ahead of those of the Insureds. In doing so, Carrier violated Section 624.155(1)(b)(1), Florida Statutes. Carrier’s use of unqualified and biased adjusters, and failure to retain experts necessary to identify the repairs necessary to restore the property to its pre-loss condition, evidence Carrier’s failure to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims in violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), Florida Statutes. Carrier’s use of unqualified and biased adjusters, and failure to retain experts necessary to identify the repairs necessary to restore the property to its pre-loss condition, evidence Carrier’s failure to conduct a reasonable investigation based upon available information. In denying full coverage for this claim without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information, Carrier has violated Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), Florida Statutes. By representing to Insureds that the Policy does not afford full coverage for this loss, Carrier is misrepresenting pertinent facts and/or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue, in violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), Florida Statutes. When applying the facts present here to Florida law, it is clear that Carrier is acting in bad faith. Florida Statute § 624.02 defines insurance as a contract whereby one undertakes to indemnify another or pay or allow a specified amount or a determinable benefit based on determinable contingencies. Inherent is the fact that payment must be made timely and promptly so that insureds may mitigate their damages and be put back into the position they were in prior to the loss as quickly as possible. Carrier has breached this duty by refusing to properly and timely adjust the loss. Moreover, Section 69B-220.201 of the Florida Administrative Code defines Carrier’s adjusters conduct here as an unfair claims settlement practice. Specifically, Section 69B-220.201(3) provides that “[a]n adjuster shall not approach investigations, adjustments, and settlements in a manner prejudicial to the insured” and that “[a]n adjuster shall make truthful and unbiased reports of the facts after making a complete investigation.” As detailed above, Carrier’s investigation and adjustment of this claim was done in a manner prejudicial to Insureds, was incomplete, and lacked truthful and unbiased reports of the facts. As of the date of this Notice, it has been 265 calendar days since the loss, and Carrier has yet to pay the claim in full. Carrier has more than enough information and is still refusing to accept coverage for the Insureds’ claim. This continued and repeated reckless claim delay and denial of coverage will result in a significant punitive damage award if a bad faith lawsuit is filed. Carrier can cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice and avoid a lawsuit for bad faith by immediately accepting full coverage under the subject insurance policy for this claim and by paying Insured’s estimate of $21,300.71, Eco-Pro Restorations SA LLC in the amount of $3,100.00, and Loss Restorations LLC in the amount of $4,320.32, less applicable deductible, which is the reasonable amount of the covered loss pursuant to the policy. A copy of this form has been submitted to the Florida Department of Financial Services who has transmitted the same to the following parties providing them notice of the filing of this Civil Remedy Notice: Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
jshanholtzer@tlsslaw.com 04-09-2025 Ryan S. Parker, Esquire, on behalf of Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, responded to the Civil Remedy Notice in letter format on April 9, 2025 via electronic mail to: Magaly Acevedo and Juan Rentas c/o Clayton Kuhn, Esq. Kuhn Raslavich, P.A. 2110 West Platt Street Tampa, Florida 33606 clay@thekrfirm.com RE: Claim Number : 057071530 Insureds : Magaly Acevedo and Juan Rentas Date of Loss : June 1, 2024 Policy Number : H36-251-590271-70 DFS Notice No. : 807892 Notice Accepted Date : February 21, 2025 Dear Mr. Kuhn: As you know, this law firm has the pleasure of representing The First Liberty Insurance Corporation (“First Liberty”) in connection with the above-referenced matter. This will serve as First Liberty’s response to the above-referenced Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (“Notice”). The Florida Department of Financial Services assigned Filing Number 807892 and an acceptance date of February 21, 2025. As an initial matter, the Notice identifies “Liberty Mutual Insurance Company,” as the Insurer to which the Notice was filed against, even though The First Liberty Insurance Corporation is the company that issued the subject policy of insurance. Accordingly, the Notice does not correctly identify the insurance company that issued the Policy. For that reason alone, the Notice is defective. See Lopez v. Geico Casualty Company, 968 F. Supp.2d 1202 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 5, 2013). By responding to the defective Notice, First Liberty does not waive its right to contest the validity of the Notice and specifically reserves its right to do so in the future. The Notice alleges “Unfair Trade Practice,” and “Claim Delay,” as well as violations of Fla. Stat. §§ 624.155(1)(b)(1), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), (b), (c), (d) & (g), and 626.9541(1)(i)(4), and Fla. Admin. Code 69B-220.201. The allegations contained in the Notice constitute generic, boilerplate accusations against First Liberty, are wholly without merit, and lack sufficient legal and factual support. Accordingly, First Liberty denies each and every alleged violation of Florida law. Additionally, the Notice is deficient because it fails to comply with the requirements of Florida Statutes. Section 624.155(3)(b), Florida Statutes, requires that a Civil Remedy Notice “state with specificity” the statutory provisions allegedly violated, the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation, the name of any individual involved in the violation, and the specific policy language relevant to the violation. Rather than include the specifics as required by Statue, when asked to identify the specific policy language relevant to the alleged violations, the Notice references all applicable loss payment and coverage provisions including the declarations page and all endorsements to the Policy, in addition to any sections relied upon by the insurer in its denial, including the duties in the event of loss provisions and the Policy’s exclusion of coverage provisions. The Notice does not explain how First Liberty allegedly failed to comply with the specific terms of the Policy or the listed statutes with specific factual support or specific language in the Policy pertaining to the alleged incident. The failure to include the information required by Florida Statute § 624.155(3)(b) renders the Notice defective from the outset. See Julien v. United Property & Casualty Insurance Company, 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021); and Demase v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 351 So. 3d 136 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022). Moreover, the Notice is defective as a matter of law. As stated by the Florida Supreme Court, the purpose of a Civil Remedy Notice is to put the insurer on notice of an alleged violation, the circumstances surrounding same, and indicate the details of the alleged violation in order to provide an insurer with 60 days to “cure” the alleged claim defects. See Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). The purpose of Fla. Stat. §624.155 is to provide the insurer with an opportunity to resolve a first-party coverage dispute and otherwise avoid litigation. See Talat Enterprises, Inc.; see also Lane v. Westfield Ins. Co., 862 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Further, a Civil Remedy Notice must be sufficiently specific to provide the insurer with an opportunity to cure the alleged violations. This would include i) identifying the specific policy provision(s) at issue, ii) citing specific language of the statutory provision(s) the insurer allegedly violated, and iii) specifically identifying what actions the insurer must take to remedy the alleged violations. Rousso v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., 2010 WL 7367059 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 13, 2010); Heritage Corp. of South Florida v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 580 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1299-1300 (S.D. Fla. 2008). Further, the “facts and circumstances” section of the Notice is not in compliance with Florida law. Contrary to the requirements of Florida Statutes, the Notice makes false, boilerplate accusations, and does not contain any specific facts supporting the violations alleged. For example, the Notice alleges that First Liberty violated Fla. Stat. § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) – Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. However, the Notice does not explain how First Liberty’s investigation was improper. Further, the Notice fails to describe how First Liberty’s investigation was conducted in bad faith, how First Liberty engaged in unfair trade practices, or how First Liberty delayed the claim. As more fully discussed below, the allegations contained within the Notice are untrue, and the Notice contains no facts to support them. Contrary to the allegations contained within the Notice, First Liberty acted promptly, responsibly, and in good faith at every opportunity in connection with this claim. First Liberty’s investigation was conducted in full compliance with both Florida law and the applicable policy of insurance. The failure to provide any factual support for the alleged violations of Florida statutory and administrative law renders the Notice deficient and in violation of Florida Statute § 624.155(3)(b). A summary of the pertinent facts relating to First Liberty’s handling of the claim will follow. On or about June 10, 2024, First Liberty received notice of a claim for damage to the subject property located at 3834 Bittern Court, Orlando, Florida 32822 with a reported date of loss of June 1, 2024. The claim was reported by the Insureds’ public adjuster, who advised that there was interior water damage in the master bedroom, master bathroom, guest bathroom, and adjoining hallway caused from an unknown source. First Liberty immediately acknowledged receipt of the claim and began its investigation. On June 10, 2024, First Liberty received correspondence from the Insureds’ public adjuster which enclosed a letter of representation and a public adjuster’s contract, signed between the Insureds and Trust Public Adjusters, dated June 3, 2024. The letter also requested that First Liberty provide a certified copy of the subject policy to the public adjuster. In correspondence dated June 13, 2024, First Liberty advised the Insureds’ public adjuster that it was in receipt of its letter of representation, stated that it would be sending a certified copy of the policy as requested, and requested the public adjuster’s cooperation in coordinating an inspection of the property. Additionally, First Liberty enclosed a blank proof of loss form for the Insureds to fill out and return. Thereafter, First Liberty coordinated an inspection of the Property set for July 3, 2024. During the inspection, the Insureds and/or the Insureds’ public adjuster advised First Liberty’s field adjuster that: 1. water mitigation services had already been performed and completed by Loss Restorations; 2. that a plumber had come to the property in order to locate the source of the alleged leak, though was unsuccessful in doing so; and 3. the leak was still active and expelling water. The Insureds presented First Liberty’s field adjuster with an invoice from Gio Handyman in the amount of $130.00 for “shower test performance, broken shower pan causing damage to wall, baseboard master bedroom and floor and baseboard master bathroom!!!” The Insureds reiterated however that the handyman was unable to conclusively determine and locate the source of the leak. First Liberty’s field adjuster advised the Insureds and the Insureds’ public adjuster that it was not in agreement with completion of water mitigation services while the leak was still active. As it relates to the water mitigation services performed, First Liberty’s field adjuster noted that base molding and some portions of drywall had been removed and was subsequently advised that the removed portions of base molding were not retained for inspection. The inspection concluded with First Liberty’s field adjuster advising the Insureds and the Insureds’ public adjuster that they need to retain a licensed plumber to come to the property and determine source of the leak and make the necessary repairs. Following the inspection, First Liberty sent correspondence to the Insureds and the Insureds’ public adjuster, dated July 3, 2024, reiterating what was discussed during the inspection regarding both: 1. the active leak and need for a plumber to locate and repair the leak; and 2. the First Liberty’s request for documentation evidencing completed repairs. The letter further advised that based on the above, First Liberty would be continuing to investigate the claim under a reservation of rights. The letter cited to the following applicable Policy provisions: SECTION I – CONDITIONS . . . 2. Your Duties After Loss. In case of a loss to covered property, you must see that the following are done: a. give prompt notice to us or our agent; b. notify the police in case of loss by theft; c. notify the credit card or fund transfer card company in case of loss under Credit Card or Fund Transfer Card coverage; d. protect the property from further damage. If repairs to the property are required, you must: (1) make reasonable and necessary repairs to protect the property; and (2) keep an accurate record of repair expenses; . . . f. as often as we reasonably require: (1) show the damaged property; (2) provide us with records and documents we request and permit us to make copies; and . . . * * * * Also on July 3, 2024, First Liberty received correspondence from Loss Restorations which included a work authorization/direction to pay contract, executed by the Insureds, dated June 27, 2024, along with an estimate for water mitigation services in the amount of $4,320.32. Additionally, after the claim was reported, First Liberty received a work order agreement/estimate from Eco-Pro Restorations SA, LLC, relating to mold assessment services. First Liberty sent numerous correspondences to the Insureds and the Insureds’ public adjuster, reiterating several times that it was requesting any and all documentation evidencing that the active leak had been located and repaired. These correspondences were sent between July 3, 2024 and August 28, 2024. However, at no point was any invoice or other document demonstrating that the repair had occurred been provided to First Liberty. On September 16, 2024, First Liberty sent correspondence to the Insureds and Insureds’ public adjuster that, because the aforementioned documents had not been provided despite the repeated requests, there was no coverage for the claimed damages under the Policy. Then on February 21, 2025, First Liberty received the subject Notice. As mentioned above, the Insureds advised First Liberty during its inspection that there was an active and ongoing leak which had not been located and repaired. Pursuant to the Policy’s conditions, the Insureds have a duty to, inter alia, “make reasonable and necessary repairs to protect the property” and to “provide [First Liberty] with records and documents [it] request[s] and permit [it] to make copies.” Because there was an active leak that had not been discovered as of the time of the inspection, the Insureds were obligated under the Policy to undertake efforts to locate and repair that leak in order to protect the property from further damage. Based on First Liberty’s investigation and correspondence with the Insureds and Insureds’ public adjuster, the Insureds failed to so protect the property from further damage. Additionally, First Liberty repeatedly requested that the Insureds provide it with any documentation demonstrating that the leak had been located and repaired, and the Insureds were likewise obligated to provide those documents to First Liberty. Despite First Liberty’s requests and the Insureds’ obligation, First Liberty has not received any such documentation from the Insureds or the Insureds’ public adjuster to date. Therefore, the Insureds have failed to comply with the Policy’s conditions, and this violation has prejudiced First Liberty’s investigation of the claim. If you have since received any documents relevant to the above request—namely, an invoice or like document demonstrating that the leak has been located and repaired, please provide same to First Liberty as soon as possible. Without waiving its right to contest the validity of the subject defective and improper Notice, as the facts clearly demonstrate, First Liberty has, and continues to comply with both Florida law and the applicable policy of insurance throughout the entire handling of this claim. It is abundantly clear, as outlined above, that with regard to the investigation and handling of this claim, First Liberty’s actions were prompt, thorough, and conducted in good faith. Therefore, First Liberty specifically denies each and every violation alleged in the Notice. First Liberty does not intend, by this letter, to waive any policy defenses, and specifically reserves its right to assert such additional policy defenses at any time. I trust this response addressed all concerns raised by the Notice. However, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned should you require additional information. Sincerely, RYAN S. PARKER TYLER T. CALEY cc: The First Liberty Insurance Corporation
clay@thekrfirm.com 03-06-2025 Please consider this CRN withdrawn as of 3/6/25.
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