Filing Number: 808241
|
| Filing Accepted: 2/25/2025 |
| Last/Business Name
*
|
|
|
GRAYS
|
|
First Name |
|
PATRICIA |
|
| Street Address
*
|
|
9104 GREENLEAF ROAD |
| City, State Zip
*
|
|
JACKSONVILLE,
FL
32208
|
| Email Address
*
|
|
PATSYM0053@AOL.COM |
| Complainant Type:
*
|
|
Insured |
|
| Last/Business Name* |
|
GRAYS |
|
First Name |
|
PATRICIA |
| Policy # * |
|
HCPC-HO3-534109-2 |
|
Claim #* |
|
932408 |
|
Attorney is Applicable
|
| Last Name* |
O'NEIL
First Name *
JONATHAN
Initial
|
| Street Address* |
|
203 FORT WADE ROAD, SUITE 260 |
| City, State Zip* |
|
PONTE VEDRA
,
FLORIDA
32081
|
| Email Address * |
|
JONATHAN@WOOLSEYMORCOM.COM |
|
|
| Insurer Type
*
|
|
 Authorized Insurer
 Unauthorized Insurer
|
|
|
| Insurer Name |
|
|
| Insurer Name* |
|
HOMEOWNERS CHOICE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.
|
| Insurer Name* |
|
|
| Street Address* |
|
|
| City, State Zip* |
|
,
|
|
NAIC Company Code 12944 |
|
|
| Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):*
LUIS NOGUERA (FLA. ADJ. LICENSE # W452081), TRICIA HARRIS (FLA ADJ. LICENSE # A112360), AND JOSHUA FOSTER (FLA ADJ. LICENSE # W049308)
|
| Type of Insurance
*
Residential Property & Casualty
|
|
|
| Reason for Notice
*
|
|
|
Claim Delay
|
|
|
Other
:
Wrongful claim denial
|
|
|
Unfair Trade Practice
|
|
|
Other
:
Unfair claim settlement practices
|
|
|
Other
:
Unreasonable investigation
|
|
|
Other
:
Failure to act on claim
|
|
|
Other
:
Failure to conduct a reasonable investigation based on available information
|
|
|
Other
:
Failure to maintain proper complaint handling procedures
|
|
|
Other
:
Misrepresenting the insurance policy provisions to the insured
|
|
|
Other
:
Misrepresenting Florida statutory provisions to the insured
|
|
|
Other
:
Misrepresenting facts to the insured
|
|
|
Other
:
Failure to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims
|
|
|
Other
:
Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information
|
|
|
*
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)(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).
|
|
*
Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.
SECTION I – PERILS INSURED AGAINST
COVERAGE A – DWELLING and COVERAGE B – OTHER STRUCTURES
We insure against risk of direct loss to property described in Coverages A and B only if that loss is a physical loss to property.
****
[A]ny ensuing loss to property described in Coverages A and B not excluded or otherwise precluded in this policy is covered.
****
COVERAGE C – PERSONAL PROPERTY
We insure for direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage C caused by a peril listed below unless the loss is excluded in SECTION I –EXCLUSIONS…2. Windstorm or hail.
****
COVERAGE D – Loss of Use 1. If a loss covered under SECTION I – PROPERTY COVERAGES makes that part of the “residence premises” where you reside not fit to live in, we cover the Additional Living Expense, meaning: a. Any necessary increase in living expenses incurred by you so that your household can maintain its normal standard of living. Payment will be for the shortest time required to: a. Repair or replace the damage; or b. If you permanently relocate, the shortest time required for your household to settle elsewhere. In either event, the payments(s) will be limited to 24 consecutive months from the date of the covered loss. 2. If a loss covered under SECTION I – PROPERTY COVERAGES makes that part of the “residence premises” rented to others or held for rental by you not fit to live in, we cover the Fair Rental Value, meaning: a. The fair rental value of that part of the “residence premises” rented to others or held for rental by you less any expenses that do not continue while the premises is not fit to live in. Payment will be for the shortest time required to repair or replace that part of the premises rented or held for rental. In either event, the payment(s) will be limited to 24 consecutive months from the date of the covered loss. 3. If civil authority prohibits you from use of the "residence premises" as a result of direct damage to neighboring premises by a Peril Insured Against in this policy, we cover the Additional Living Expense and Fair Rental Value loss as provided under 1. and 2. above for no more than 2 weeks. The periods of time under 1., 2. and 3. above are not limited by expiration of this policy.
****
ADDITIONAL COVERAGES
1. Debris Removal. We will pay reasonable expenses incurred by you for the removal of: a. Debris of covered property if a Peril Insured Against that applies to the damaged property causes the loss; or b. Ash, dust or particles from a volcanic eruption that has caused direct loss to a building or property contained in a building. This expense is included in the limit of liability that applies to the damaged property. If the amount to be paid for the actual damage to the property plus the debris removal expense is more than the limit of liability for the damaged property, an additional 5% of that limit of liability is available for debris removal expense. We will also pay reasonable expenses incurred by you, up to $500, for the removal from the "residence premises" of: a. Your tree(s) felled by the peril of Windstorm or Hail; b. Your tree(s) felled by the peril of Weight of Ice, Snow or Sleet; or c. A neighbor's tree(s) felled by a Peril Insured Against under Coverage C; provided the tree(s) damages a covered structure. The $500 limit is the most we will pay in any one loss regardless of the number of fallen trees.
2. Reasonable Emergency Measures. a. We will pay up to the greater of $3,000 or 1% of your Coverage A limit of liability for the reasonable costs incurred by you for necessary measures taken solely to protect covered property from further damage, when the damage or loss is caused by a Peril Insured Against.
****
11. "Fungi", Wet or Dry Rot, Yeast or Bacteria. a. We will pay up to $10,000 for: (1) The total of all loss payable under Section I – Property Coverages caused by "fungi", wet or dry rot, yeast or bacteria; (2) The cost to remove "fungi", wet or dry rot, yeast or bacteria from property covered under Section I – Property Coverages; (3) The cost to tear out and replace any part of the building or other covered property as needed to gain access to the "fungi", wet or dry rot, yeast or bacteria; and (4) The cost of testing of air or property to confirm the absence, presence or level of "fungi", wet or dry rot, yeast or bacteria; whether performed prior to, during or after removal, repair, restoration or replacement. The cost of such testing will be provided only to the extent that there is a reason to believe that there is the presence of "fungi", wet or dry rot, yeast or bacteria.
****
12. Ordinance or Law. a. You may use up to 25% of the limit of liability that applies to Coverage A for the increased costs you incur due to the enforcement of any ordinance or law which requires or regulates: (1) The construction, demolition, remodeling, renovation or repair of that part of a covered building or other structure damaged by a Peril Insured Against; or (2) The demolition and reconstruction of the undamaged part of a covered building or other structure, when that building or other structure must be totally demolished because of damage by a Peril Insured Against to another part of that covered building or other structure; or (3) The remodeling, removal or replacement of the portion of the undamaged part of a covered building or other structure necessary to complete the remodeling, repair or replacement of that part of the covered building or other structure damaged by a Peril Insured Against. b. You may use all or part of this ordinance or law coverage to pay for the increased costs you incur to remove debris resulting from: (1) The construction; (2) Demolition; (3) Remodeling; (4) Renovation; (5) Repair; or (6) Replacement; of property as stated in a. above.
Also refer to:
Coverage A provision, coverage B provision, coverage C provision, coverage D provision, all additional coverages provisions, all coverages provided by endorsement or rider, the declarations page, loss payment or settlement provision, duties in event of loss policy provision, all terms and conditions of section I of the insurance policy, the insurance policy definitions section, the insurance policy‘s exclusion of coverage provisions, all insurance policy provisions that provide coverage to the insured property, and all policy provisions.
|
| |
*
Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.
624.155(1)(a)(1) – violating 626.9541(1)(i)
626.9541(1)(a)(1) -- misrepresenting the terms of an insurance policy.
626.9541(1)(i) -- unfair claim settlement practices.
Homeowners Choice Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“HOMEOWNERS CHOICE”) has committed the following in handling the insureds’ claim: 1) failure to pay benefits owed; 2) failure to act in due diligence and good faith to resolve claims; 3) placing the financial interest of the insurer before that of the policy holder and claimant; 4) failure to properly train, evaluate, and manage adjusters retained to represent the policies and procedures of HOMEOWNERS CHOICE; 5) looking for ways to delay benefit payments and otherwise “low ball” or “stone wall” claims; 6) looking for ways to deny the insureds’ claim; 7) looking for ways to reduce recovery to the insured; 8) failure to perform a reasonable investigation; 9) misrepresenting Florida statutory provisions to its insured; 10) misrepresenting insurance policy provisions to the insured; 11) HOMEOWNERS CHOICE has failed and refused to acknowledge coverage and promptly pay the benefits due and owed to the insured; 12) the reasons for this may be attributed to improper training, supervision, and/or motivation of outside adjusters and claims supervisors to promptly and fairly adjust and pay full benefits available to the insured. The insurer may have failed to adopt proper standards of investigation and adjustment of losses or is otherwise not implementing those standards because a proper investigation and full and prompt payment for the loss is not occurring.
In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. HOMEOWNERS CHOICE has breached this duty by its adjustment of the insureds’ claim of loss. HOMEOWNERS CHOICE has failed to create and implement adequate guidelines for proper investigation to evaluate claims handling and for training and supervision of employees resulting in violations as set forth above. HOMEOWNERS CHOICE has failed and/or refused to thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigate and evaluate the insureds’ insurance claim for damages. Despite the insureds’ timely notification to HOMEOWNERS CHOICE of their insurance claim, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE has failed and refused to acknowledge the covered loss and pay all amounts due and owing to the insured under the policy of insurance. HOMEOWNERS CHOICE has failed to promptly settle the insureds’ insurance claim, when the obligation to settle the claim had become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance, in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage. Despite the insureds’ pleas otherwise, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE has failed and refused to acknowledge its obligation to tender all insurance proceed monies due and owing the insured or assist the insured in mitigation of the damages.
In exchange for a premium paid by the insureds, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE issued the subject insurance policy which provided coverage for the insured property from August 10, 2022, to August 10, 2023, for “direct loss to property described in Coverages A and B only if that loss is a physical loss to property.” As such, the subject all-risk Policy contains coverage for all direct physical losses to the insured property unless the loss is specifically and unambiguously excluded from coverage by the Policy. On or about July 10, 2023, the insured property suffered a windstorm loss, and the insureds immediately submitted a claim to HOMEOWNERS CHOICE for property damage, i.e., storm, wind, rain, and water intrusion damages throughout the insured property. Hence, the insureds suffered a substantial loss regarding the real property and continue to suffer such loss. Having suffered such substantial damage, the insureds promptly notified HOMEOWNERS CHOICE of the loss in an effort to mitigate the current damage and prevent the exacerbation of any additional losses. The desired result did not follow. HOMEOWNERS CHOICE since being presented the Insureds’ claim has misrepresented policy provisions to avoid paying the insured what they are owed under the policy. Ultimately, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE has failed and refused to properly settle the insureds’ claim in good faith. The insured have requested that HOMEOWNERS CHOICE conduct an investigation, admit coverage, and pay damages; HOMEOWNERS CHOICE has failed and refused to do so. In short, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE has failed to handle its insureds’ claim in good faith in violation of Fla. Stat. 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3), and 626.9541(1)(i).
Based upon HOMEOWNERS CHOICE’s investigation and property inspection, which confirmed windstorm damages, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE nevertheless sent correspondence to the insured dated July 26, 2023 (signed by HOMEOWNERS CHOICE’s adjuster, Luis Noguera - Fla. Adj. License #W452081) confirming partial coverage, denying the remainder, issuing payment for only $4,845.08, and failing and refusing to pay all amounts due and owing under the Policy for the loss. In regard to insurance contracts, a specific refusal to pay a claim is the breach which triggers the cause of action. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d 885, 892 (Fla. 2003); Donovan v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 574 So. 2d 285, 286 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1991) (finding that a breach of contract takes place at the moment the insurance company refuses to pay a claim). Therefore, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE breached the Policy. Moreover, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE’s argued exclusions and/or limitations to coverage are devoid of anti-concurrent causation language. Thus, “coverage may exist where an insured risk constitutes a concurrent cause of the loss even when it is not the prime or efficient cause.” Sebo v. Am. Home Assurance Co., Inc., 208 So. 3d 694, 699 (Fla. 2016). In addition, under the Policy, any ensuing loss to property not excluded or excepted in this policy is covered. Hence, there are a myriad of coverages under the Policy that would provide coverage for the loss. Nevertheless, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE failed and refused to acknowledge the covered loss and pay all amounts due and owing for the loss. Therefore, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE breached the Policy.
Concerned with the accuracy of HOMEOWNERS CHOICE’s coverage denial, and given the extensive nature of the physical damage, the insureds retained a loss consultant, Property Pros Consulting (“PPC”), to perform an investigation and damage evaluation in accordance with industry standards and Florida law. Based on its investigation, PPC determined that a windstorm on or about July 10, 2023, including storm and wind, caused damage throughout the exterior of the insured property (particularly the roof warranting its replacement), including openings, which allowed wind and rain to intrude into the interior causing additional damage. Moreover, PPC determined that at least $44,050.69 worth of repairs would be required to return the property to its pre-loss condition as a result of the windstorm loss. Nevertheless, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE failed and refused to acknowledge the covered loss and pay all amounts due and owing under the Policy. Therefore, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE breached the Policy.
Thereafter, the insureds sent correspondence to HOMEOWNERS CHOICE enclosing the supporting PPC report outlining the cause, scope, and cost of the loss along with other supporting documents and requested HOMEOWNERS CHOICE to reconsider its coverage denial. Nevertheless, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE failed and refused to acknowledge the covered loss and pay all amounts due and owing under the Policy, including summarily reaffirming its denial via correspondence dated May 31, 2024 (signed by HOMEOWNERS CHOICE’s adjuster, Luis Noguera - Fla. Adj. License #W452081). Therefore, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE breached the Policy.
Questioning the propriety of HOMEOWNERS CHOICE’s continued coverage denial, and given the extensive nature of the physical damage, the insured retained a consulting licensed contractor, Tom Gannon with LSC Construction Consultants, LLC (“LSC”), to perform an investigation and damage evaluation in accordance with industry standards and Florida law. Based on his investigation, Mr. Gannon concluded that a windstorm on or about July 10, 2023, including storm and wind, caused damage throughout the exterior of the insured property (particularly the roof warranting its replacement), including openings, which allowed wind and rain to intrude into the interior causing additional damage. Moreover, Mr. Gannon determined that at least $36,928.55 worth of repairs would be required to return the property to its pre-loss condition as a result of the windstorm loss. Nevertheless, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE failed and refused to acknowledge the covered loss and pay all amounts due and owing under the Policy. Therefore, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE breached the Policy.
On February 25, 2025, the insureds sent correspondence to HOMEOWNERS CHOICE enclosing their Sworn Statement in Proof of Loss, the supporting PPC report and LSC report outlining the cause, scope, and cost of the loss along with other supporting documents, the Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation, and requested HOMEOWNERS CHOICE to reconsider its coverage denial. To date, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE has failed and refused to acknowledge the covered loss and pay all amounts due and owing under the Policy. Therefore, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE breached the Policy.
As such, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE’s coverage denial is a blatant misrepresentation of the available coverages under the Policy in direct violation of Fla. Stats. 626.9541(1)(a)(1), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(a)(1), and 626.9541(1)(i)(2) and is nothing more than a mere pretext to wrongfully deny and delay this claim. As a result, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE has materially misrepresented the coverages under the subject policy to the insured for the purpose and with the intent of effecting settlement of the insureds’ claim on less favorable terms than those provided in, and contemplated by, the subject policy in direct violation of Fla. Stat. § 626.9541(1)(i)(2). Further, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE is in violation of Florida statutes §§ 626.9541(1)(a)(1), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), and 626.9541(1)(a)(1) by misrepresenting pertinent facts and insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue; and also in violation of Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) by denying the insureds’ claim without conducting a reasonable investigation based upon available information.
In summary, the insureds’ loss is clearly covered by the terms of the policy of insurance with HOMEOWNERS CHOICE. However, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE chose to deny coverage for the insureds’ loss. Despite clear evidence that the damage was covered and caused by a covered peril, the claim was denied. To date, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE continues to deny the insured and its insured full indemnity for the claim. While HOMEOWNERS CHOICE refuses to honor this claim, a jury in Duval County will likely do what HOMEOWNERS CHOICE has refused; exercise the benefit of doubt in favor of the insured in finding full coverage for this loss. Indeed, the insureds will undoubtedly meet the burden of proof at trial, under the HOMEOWNERS CHOICE all-risk policy, to show that, while HOMEOWNERS CHOICE provided insurance coverage, damage occurred to the insured property. See Jones v. Federated Nat'l Ins. Co., 235 So. 3d 936, 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). With the data presented within the HOMEOWNERS CHOICE’s investigation, PPC’s investigation, and LSC’s investigation, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE’s burden to demonstrate by the greater weight of the evidence that all the physical damage to the insured property was caused solely by excluded perils under the policy and not in combination with a covered peril has not and cannot be met. See Sebo v. Am. Home Assurance Co., Inc., 208 So. 3d 694 (Fla. 2016). Despite clear indicators of covered damage, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE nevertheless inexplicably denied the insureds’ claim.
As of today, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE has failed and refused to inform the insureds of their rights under the policy of insurance and Florida statutes, has improperly delayed the insureds’ claim, has wrongfully denied the insureds’ claim, and has failed and refused to adequately indemnify the insureds for the loss and defiantly continues to do so. Indeed, from the time of receiving the claim, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE has purposely and maliciously delayed in adjusting the subject claim in an effort to either avoid paying the claim altogether or, at the very least, avoid paying the full extent of the loss. Notably, under Florida law, “[t]he filing of a lawsuit does not extinguish the insurer’s obligations under the policy to adjust and pay the claim.” Tristar Lodging, Inc. V. Arch Specialty Ins. Co., 434 F. Supp. 2d 1286, 1289 (M.D. Fla. 2006).
To date, the insureds have made a good faith effort to comply with all of the requirements under the subject policy of insurance, and it is only fair that HOMEOWNERS CHOICE do the same. Yet, that is not the case. The insureds feel that the insured property is a valuable asset, and, by continuously delaying the proper handling of this claim, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE is putting the insured property at risk. As a responsible property owner, the insured purchased insurance to protect the property, paid all of the premiums, and has kept up to date with the responsibilities under the policy. Yet, when the insured needed to rely on the insurance because of this unforeseen loss, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE turned its back and delayed and wrongfully denied coverage that the insured are rightfully owed.
Ultimately, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE has failed and refused to properly investigate the loss. The insureds have requested that HOMEOWNERS CHOICE admit coverage and pay damages, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE has failed and refused to do so, and continues to refuse to fully indemnify the insured for the loss and pay the amounts necessary to properly repair the insureds’ property, despite knowing it is required to do so. In short, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE has failed to handle its insureds’ claim in good faith.
In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust; HOMEOWNERS CHOICE has breached this duty by its insufficient adjustment of the insureds’ claim. HOMEOWNERS CHOICE 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 set forth above. HOMEOWNERS CHOICE has failed and/or refused to thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigate and evaluate the insureds’ insurance claim for damages.
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 upon determinable contingencies. Inherent is the fact that payment must be made timely and promptly so that the insured may mitigate their damages to put them back into the position they were prior to loss as quickly as possible. HOMEOWNERS CHOICE breached this duty.
The actions taken by HOMEOWNERS CHOICE in the handling / adjustment of the insureds’ claim were willful, wanton, and with complete disregard for the rights of its insured and occur with such a frequency as to indicate a general business practice and are in violation of Fla. Stat. 624.155 and 626.9541.
HOMEOWNERS CHOICE’s actions amount to but are not limited to the following:
1. Claim delay
2. Wrongful claim denial
3. Unfair trade practice
4. Unfair claim settlement practices
5. Unreasonable investigation
6. Failure to act on claim
7. Failure to conduct a reasonable investigation based on available information
8. Failure to maintain proper complaint handling procedures
9. Misrepresenting the insurance policy provisions to the insured
10. Misrepresenting Florida statutory provisions to the insured
11. Misrepresenting facts to the insured
12. Failure to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims
13. Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim.
17. Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary.
18. Failing to pay undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed under first-party property insurance policies within 90 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 an act of God, prevented by the impossibility of performance, or due to actions by the insured or claimant that constitute fraud, lack of cooperation, or intentional misrepresentation regarding the claim for which benefits are owed.
Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this civil remedy notice, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE must:
(1): Admit full coverage for the insureds’ loss; and
(2): Tender all insurance monies due and owing to the insured for the loss under the subject Policy;
A copy of this form submitted to the FDFS has been emailed and/or uploaded and also printed out and mailed to the following parties providing them notice of the filing of this civil remedy notice:
Homeowners Choice Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Inc.
PO BOX 22967
Tampa, FL 33622
claims@hcpci.com
|
|
|
*
|
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
|