Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     807951
Filing Accepted:  2/21/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
RENEGADE GOLF COMPANY   First Name  
Street Address * 301 ROYAL SAINT AUGUSTINE PARKWAY
City, State Zip * ST. AUGUSTINE, FL 32080
Email Address * BGM@WEKLAW.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   RENEGADE GOLF COMPANY   First Name  
Policy # * ESC111944 Claim #* AWAX23110001
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* MELENDEZ First Name * BRITTANY Initial
Street Address* 708 EAST COLONIAL DRIVE SUITE 103
City, State Zip* ORLANDO , FL 32803
Email Address * BGM@WEKLAW.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   AXIS SURPLUS INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 26620
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* N/A
Type of Insurance * Commercial Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
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)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

BUILDING AND PERSONAL PROPERTY COVERAGE FORM. A. COVERAGE 4. Loss Payment a. In the event of loss or damage covered by this Coverage Form, at our option, we will either: (1) Pay the value of lost or damaged property; (2) Pay the cost of repairing or re- placing the lost or damaged prop- erty, subject to b. below; (3) Take all or any part of the property at an agreed or appraised value; or (4) Repair, rebuild or replace the prop- erty with other property of like kind and quality, subject to b. below. We will determine the value of lost or damaged property, or the cost of its repair or replacement, in accordance with the applicable terms of the Val- uation Condition in this Coverage Form or any applicable provision which amends or supersedes the Valuation Condition. b. The cost to repair, rebuild or replace does not include the increased cost attributable to enforcement of or compliance with any ordinance or law regulating the construction, use or repair of any property. c. We will give notice of our intentions within 30 days after we receive the sworn proof of loss. d. We will not pay you more than your financial interest in the Covered Prop- erty. e. We may adjust losses with the owners of lost or damaged property if other than you. If we pay the owners, such payments will satisfy your claims against us for the owners' property. We will not pay the owners more than their financial interest in the Covered Property. f. We may elect to defend you against suits arising from claims of owners of property. We will do this at our expense. g. We will pay for covered loss or damage within 30 days after we receive the sworn proof of loss, if you have complied with all of the terms of this Coverage Part, and: (1) We have reached agreement with you on the amount of loss; or (2) An appraisal award has been made. h. A party wall is a wall that separates and is common to adjoining buildings that are owned by different parties. In settling covered losses involving a party wall, we will pay a proportion of the loss to the party wall based on your interest in the wall in proportion to the interest of the owner of the adjoining building. However, if you elect to repair or replace your building and the owner f the adjoining building elects not to repair or replace that building, we will pay you the full value of the loss to the party wall, subject to all applicable policy provisions including Limits of Insurance, the Valuation and Coinsur- ance Conditions and all other provisions of this Loss Payment Condition. Our payment under the provisions of this paragraph does not alter any right of subrogation we may have against any entity, including the owner or insurer of the adjoining building, and does not alter the terms of the Transfer Of Rights Of Recovery Against Others To Us Condition in this policy. 7. Valuation We will determine the value of Covered Property in the event of loss or damage as follows: a. At actual cash value as of the time of loss or damage, except as provided in b., c., d. and e. below. b. If the Limit of Insurance for Building satisfies the Additional Condition, Co- insurance, and the cost to repair or replace the damaged building property is $2,500 or less, we will pay the cost of building repairs or replacement. The cost of building repairs or re- placement does not include the in- creased cost attributable to enforce- ment of or compliance with any or- dinance or law regulating the construc- tion, use or repair of any property. However, the following property will be valued at the actual cash value, even when attached to the building: (1) Awnings or floor coverings; (2) Appliances for refrigerating, ven- tilating, cooking, dishwashing or laundering; or (3) Outdoor equipment or furniture. c. "Stock" you have sold but not © Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2011 CP 00 10 10 12 delivered at the selling price less dis- counts and expenses you otherwise would have had. d. Glass at the cost of replacement with safety-glazing material if required by law. e. Tenants' Improvements and Better- ments at: (1) Actual cash value of the lost or damaged property if you make re- pairs promptly. (2) A proportion of your original cost if you do not make repairs promptly. We will determine the proportionate value as follows: (a) Multiply the original cost by the number of days from the loss or damage to the expiration of the lease; and (b) Divide the amount determined in (a) above by the number of days from the installation of im- provements to the expiration of the lease. If your lease contains a renewal option, the expiration of the re- newal option period will replace the expiration of the lease in this procedure. (3) Nothing if others pay for repairs or replacement.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Insured: Renegade Golf Company Date of Loss: 9/22/2023 Renegade Golf Company ("Insured") purchased an insurance policy ("Policy") from Axis Surplus Insurance Company ("ASICC" or “Carrier”) with effective coverage on the date of loss, on or about September 22, 2023, and Policy number ESC111944 to insure their property located at 301 Royal Saint Augustine Parkway, St. Augustine, FL 32080 (the "Property").   On or about September 22, 2023, the Property suffered from a storm event which caused direct physical damage to the Property, including but not limited to the roof and pergola of the main golf course building. ("Loss"). ASIC was notified of the Loss and was granted access to the property in order to complete their inspection. ASIC acknowledged the claim and assigned claim number AWAX23110001 ("Claim") to the Loss. On or about November 7, 2023, ASIC sent adjuster Mark Campbell to inspect the subject property. Mr. Campbell found damage at the property and provided an estimate of the damage for 2 gutters, two downspouts, one soffit, and pergola. His estimate included debris removal as well. Based upon same, ASIC issued payment $3,846.35) for minor roof and pergola damages, however, failed to account for the money needed to fully repair the property and bring it back to its post-loss condition. ASIC stated in their coverage determination that the remaining damage to the roof was excluded as it was due to age-related weathering and mechanical damage. However, the rationale and coverage amounts are not only conflicting but appear only to be rendered in order for ASIC to avoid paying what is rightfully owed to the Insured pursuant to the insurance policy for which they paid premiums. The letter states that coverage is being extended for minor roof damage and pergola damage and the rest is due to age-related weathering. However, the carrier was provided proof that the entirety of the pergola covering the patio along the back of the main building was completely destroyed by the wind. The stone columns were knocked over by the wind. This level of wind damage undoubtedly caused damage to the roof system. ASIC is using boilerplate exclusions in order to not pay what is rightfully owed to the Insured and to return the property back to its pre-loss condition. Nowhere in the letter does ASIC state that they were unable to conduct or complete an investigation of the damages. The Insured has complied with post loss duties and the Carrier needs to fulfill its obligations. After being provided plenty of evidence (including photos, estimates, and access to the property) showing that the storm event caused damage at the property, ASIC continues to refuse to provide additional money to fully and indemnify the Insured for covered losses. ASIC has inspected the property several times however continues to send the same adjuster pre-suit as well as post-suit to investigate. ASIC has not provided an appropriate field adjuster to review the damage but sent the same one repeatedly, thinking this is sufficient to investigate the claim. However, unsurprisingly the results of the field adjuster who inspected the property previously has not changed. ASIC is trying to avoid finding any further information that would increase the amount of coverage available on this claim despite being aware that additional costs would need to be incurred by the Insured to repair her home. The Insured has fully complied with all applicable Policy provisions requiring cooperation with the investigation; however, ASIC has unequivocally failed to properly adjust this Claim, as further elaborated above. Rather than paying the actual damages and/or trying to settle with the Insured, ASIC has continued its pre-suit failures to act in good faith into litigation by delaying the prompt resolution of the claim. ASIC has not attempted, in good faith, to settle this claim when, under the circumstances, it could and should have done so had it acted fairly and honestly toward the policyholder and with due regard to the policyholder's interests.  Rather, ASIC has acted with only its own profit and shareholders in mind. As a direct consequence of ASIC’s failure to adjust this Loss in good faith and make any supplemental payment, the Insured continues to be without adequate compensation for the damages sustained at the Insured's Property more than a year ago and has been forced to continue to live in a damaged property. By stating the above detailed facts, it is clear that ASIC has violated the following Florida statutes:  • 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 Insureds and with due regard for their interest. • 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)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information. To date, ASIC has in bad faith failed to provide sufficient coverage under the Policy to the Insured.. As a direct result of ASIC’s underpayment of the Claim and breach of the Florida Statutes, the Insured was forced to seek the help of licensed professionals to assist them, including legal counsel. Due to the amount of time that has passed since the date of loss and the information discussed above, there is irrefutable evidence that ASIC knowingly and intentionally, and in bad faith delayed the settlement process in order to further disadvantage the Insured. The financial detriment caused to the Insured is a direct result of ASIC reckless treatment of the claims process. The Insured submitted all documents requested in a timely fashion, made their property available for inspection immediately after the discovery of the loss, submitted an estimate, and satisfied all requests. However, ASIC failed to adequately establish or identify the basis of its gross mismanagement of the claim.  The above clearly depicts that ASIC adjusted this claim in bad faith, continue to act in bad faith towards its Insured, and that ASIC is in direct violation of Unfair Claims Practices.   This notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, should ASIC fail to cure the violations set forth in this Civil Remedy Notice within the given cure period. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, ASIC must: (1) Immediately tender all proceeds due and owing to the Insured that are fairly owed to the Insured under the insurance policy that would reasonably compensate the Insured in order to put the loss property back to its pre-loss condition; the Insured’s representative has provided their estimate and invoices for the repairs and mitigation (2) Immediately afford coverage for the repairs to the subject property necessary to put the property back into its pre-loss condition (3) Agree to reimburse the Insured's reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for having to become involved to resolve the claim; and (4) Agree to reimburse the Insured for interest on the amount of benefits that was found to be due and owing to the Insured, relating back to the date of loss
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
mstephenson@fgppr.com 04-22-2025 AXIS denies the allegations contained in the CRN filed in this matter and finds them to be without merit. The CRN is deficient as it sets forth insufficient facts and factually incorrect information to support that a violation has occurred. The Civil Remedy Statute requires that a civil remedy notice provide the insurer notice of the circumstances giving rise to the violation so that the insurer has an opportunity to cure any deficiencies during the 60-day cure period. Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). The CRN contains limited explanation of its allegations and limited and incorrect facts with regard to the above-referenced claim which are unsupported and misleading. The CRN further misstates and omits the materials facts of this claim of which the Insured and its counsel are aware and as a result, the notice does not comply with the specificity requirement under the statute. Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). The CRN also cites the policy’s “Loss Payment” and “Valuation” provisions, but other than the boilerplate allegations of failure to pay, does not state with specificity how this policy language is relevant to AXIS violation. AXIS contests all of Complainant’s allegations. AXIS has acted and continues at all times to act in good faith. Without waving its objections to the deficiencies of the CRN, or any of its rights under the policy or at law, AXIS provides a brief summary in response to the CRN setting forth facts which specifically contradict the allegations in the CRN and show the CRN is unwarranted. AXIS policy number ESC111944 provides coverage for the property located at 301 Royal Saint Augustine Parkway, St. Augustine, FL 32080 for the time period October 14, 2022 to October 14, 2023, subject to the terms, conditions, limitations, and exclusions of the policy (the “Policy”). This case stems from alleged windstorm damage to the roof of The Royal at St. Augustine Golf Club which occurred on September 22, 2023, at the property referenced above (the “Loss”). The CRN alleges that AXIS “failed to account for the money needed to fully repair the property and bring it back to its post-loss condition ,” and asserts that AXIS’ “rationale and coverage amounts are not only conflicting but appear to be rendered in order for ASIC to avoid paying what is rightfully owed.” An explanation for these allegations is not set forth. In fact, after inspection, AXIS advised the Insured that some damage for the Loss was covered, but the field adjuster found no damage to the roof due to wind. AXIS estimated the Loss for covered damage and paid the amounts due and owing to the Insured, in the amount of $3,846.35(ACV, net of deductible) for damage to soffit panels, downspouts, and a pergola. The insured was advised that upon proof of repairs, it may request release of recoverable depreciation in the amount of $4,803.57. The insured hired a Public Adjuster, 5th Element Adjusting, and the AXIS adjuster completed an additional inspection with the PA and received an estimate from the PA on or about March 6, 2024, which estimated a full roof replacement. Due to the damages claimed by the insured for full roof replacement, that were inconsistent with the initial inspection, AXIS retained an engineer to inspect the damage. The engineer from J.S. Held also found that the roof damage was not due to wind. Contrary to the CRN, AXIS did not state “that coverage is being extended for minor roof damage and pergola damage and the rest is due to age-related weathering.” AXIS made no indication that any roof damage, minor or not, was covered. It stated: “The displaced soffit panels, the missing downspout section, and the missing canopy structure, were all impacted by wind,” “however, these wind events were not high enough to cause damage to a competent roof covering.” Also, there is “no damage to the roof consistent with wind or wind-borne debris,” and that “the roof was affected by conditions unrelated to wind damage, including age-related deterioration and tree damage from overhanging fronds.” Complainant also asserts that AXIS “has not provided an appropriate field adjuster to review the damage but sent the same one repeatedly,” AXIS “has unequivocally failed to properly adjust this Claim,” and AXIS “continued its pre-suit failures to act in good faith into litigation by delaying the prompt resolution of the claim.” It is unclear the basis for the allegation that multiple inspections by the same adjuster are somehow inappropriate. Notwithstanding, AXIS did retain a separate Professional Engineer to inspect the claimed damage. Moreover, the Complainant’s assertions that AXIS is acting in bad faith by having delayed a resolution lack any factual support. AXIS promptly acknowledged and paid for covered damages and denied coverage for the roof. The Insured cannot create coverage where none exists. Declining coverage where none exists is not analogous to delaying resolution or failing to promptly settle claims. The CRN also indicates that AXIS is aware that additional costs would be incurred by the insured to repair “her home,” and that the insured has been “forced to continue to live in a damaged property.” We are unclear as to these statements as it is our understanding that the property is not used as a residence, but it is a golf clubhouse. Due to the foregoing, AXIS believes that the above establishes that it has acted at all times in good faith in its handling of this claim. AXIS finds the CRN to be deficient and AXIS denies committing any alleged violations referenced in the CRN and reserves all rights pursuant to the terms of the policy and at law. Melissa Stephenson Attorney for AXIS Foran Glennon Palandech Ponzi & Rudloff, PC
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