Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     808821
Filing Accepted:  2/27/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
LOPEZ   First Name   DAISY; MILTON
Street Address * 14223 AMELIA ISLAND WAY,
City, State Zip * ORLANDO, FL 32828
Email Address * MILTOJLOPEZ@GMAIL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   LOPEZ   First Name   DAISY; MILTON
Policy # * 2MR055013503 Claim #* 00104149972
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* BRAZ First Name * TAMARA Initial
Street Address* 8865 COMMODITY CIR. STE. 12
City, State Zip* ORLANDO , FL 32819
Email Address * TBRAZ@THELAWGICALFIRM.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 42978
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* ? MARK MULVILLE, FIELD STAFF ADJUSTER ON BEHALF OF FLORIDA PENINSULA INSURANCE COMPANY; ? ERIC PEPPLES, DESK ADJUSTER ON BEHALF OF FLORIDA PENINSULA INSURANCE COMPANY;
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
Unfair Trade Practice
Other : Improper Investigation
* Statutory provision(s) which the insurer allegedly violated.
 
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)(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.

COVERAGES *** COVERAGE A - Dwelling 1. Property Covered We cover a. The 1-4 family dwelling on the described location shown in the Declarations, used principally for dwelling purposes, including structures attached to the dwelling; b. Materials and supplies located on or next to the described location used to construct, alter or repair the dwelling or other structures on the described location; and c. If not otherwise covered in this Certificate, building equipment and outdoor equipment used for the service of and located on the described location. ***
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

On or about July 17, 2023, Daisy Lopez and Milton Lopez (Complainant(s)) suffered a water leak to their Property, located at the address listed above. After discovering the damage, Complainant(s) promptly reported the loss to American Security Insurance Company (“Insurer”) on or about August 10, 2023. Throughout the Insurer’s investigation, Complainant(s) have fully cooperated with the Insurer and fully performed all duties and obligations under the policy by providing all information within Complainant(s) custody, possession and control. Despite this, Insurer failed to properly investigate or even review the information at its disposal. Upon discovering significant water damage to the subject property, Complainants notified the Insurer on or about August 10, 2023. Subsequently, Complainants retained A & L Adjusters as their Public Adjuster (“PA”), and a letter of representation was sent. After receiving notice of Insured’s loss, the Insurer assigned an independent field adjuster, Mark Mulville of Assurant (“Field Adjuster”) to the claim on or about August 17, 2023. Upon inspecting the property, the Field Adjuster took merely 17 photographs of the bathroom and the damaged pipes allegedly responsible for the water leak. The inspection was cursory, with the Adjuster failing to conduct a thorough investigation. Instead of properly assessing or documenting other potentially affected areas, the Adjuster merely took photos of the visible damages and precluded investigations because of the gutted wall. The investigation fell below the standards expected of the Insurer, as the decision to cease further investigation simply because a wall had been gutted indicates an intent to deny coverage to Complainant and withhold rightful remedies owed by the policy. Despite the absence of a proper investigation, the Insurer relied solely on Mr. Mulville’s unqualified conclusions that no covered damages were observed at the Property. However, the Field Adjuster failed to conduct a thorough investigation and neglected to inspect the plumbing for any active leaks or areas affected by the leak. Additionally, the Field Adjuster failed to assess adjacent areas, such as adjoining walls, floors, or ceilings, that could have been impacted by the water leakage, resulting in an incomplete and inadequate assessment of the extent of the damage. Moreover, the Field Adjuster did not advocate for further investigation or testing, instead arriving at the gross conclusion that no inquiry could proceed due to the gutted wall. This determination was rendered without securing critical data, including precise plumbing and/or wall measurements and moisture readings necessary to identify potential mold and bacterial growth. This gross lack of attention to detail demonstrates that the Insurer’s investigation was not conducted in a reasonable manner based upon information that was even publicly available, as required by Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d). Additionally, on or about August 17, 2023, the Public Adjuster conducted an investigation of the property and took 13 photographs. On or about August 29, 2023, Insurer issued Complainant a denial letter. The letter expressed that no coverage would be awarded due to their inability to properly inspect the damages. However, it is evident that the Insurer's investigation was inadequate and lacked proper intent, as demonstrated by the estimate provided. Mr. Mulville’s estimate, generated on or about August 28, 2023, fails to include any measurements of the bathroom or other relevant areas. In contrast, the estimate provided by the Public Adjuster offers a detailed description of each damaged item that requires replacement. The Public Adjuster’s estimate exemplifies what a thorough investigation should have entailed. Conversely, the Field Adjuster’s estimate does not detail a single item, listing a coverage amount of $0 without any measurements or coverage details. Moreover, the Public Adjuster’s estimate and investigation underscore that even in circumstances involving a gutted wall, a meaningful investigation can still be conducted. Insurer’s decision to forgo further investigation, predicated solely on the condition of the property, unequivocally demonstrates a lack of intent to properly investigate or to rectify the deficiencies of the initial, inadequate investigation. On or about February 6, 2023, Complainant retained the Lawgical for legal representation. Despite the submission of the Public Adjuster’s estimate on or about August 31, 2023, followed by a revised estimate on or about August 12, 2024, no subsequent investigation or reinspection has been undertaken. The determination letter issued on or about August 29, 2023, was rendered without a comprehensive inspection of the property, and no further attempts to reassess or re-evaluate the claim have been made. It has now been 525 days since the initial inspection, with no coverage extended. This failure to conduct a thorough and ongoing investigation constitutes a clear violation of Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Based on the events described above, it is clear that Insurer conducted an improper investigation by an inexperienced and poorly trained adjuster to intentionally minimize its liability, contrary to the policy and Florida law’s requirements. Moreover, Insurer has misrepresented pertinent facts and/or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue, and delayed the resolution of the claim by engaging in conduct to deny or reduce recovery to the Complainant. These tactics are believed to be the general business practices of this Insurer. Insurer can cure its bad faith conduct by: 1) accepting the Insureds’ damage claim as compensable, and agreeing to pay the claim in accordance with the policy in the amount of $6,247.23, plus interest, prior to the expiration of the cure period, 2) conducting a proper investigation, 3) reviewing and responding to all communications from the Insureds and their agents, including the request for a complete copy of the Policy. PLEASE GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
brad.aiken@aiken.law 06-18-2025 This is American Security Insurance Company’s response to Civil Remedy Notice Number 808821 filed by Tamara Braz, Esq. on behalf of Daisy and Milton Lopez (“Complainants”). A copy of this response was sent to Plaintiffs’ attorney, Tamara Braz, Esq., by e-mail on June 18, 2025. Re: Complainants: Daisy & Milton Lopez Named Insured: PHH Mortgage Services Insurer: American Security Insurance Company Policy Number: 2MR055013503 Claim Number: 00104149972 CRN Number: 808821 We have been retained by American Security Insurance Company (“ASIC”) to assist with responding to the above-listed Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation (“CRN”), filed by your attorney, Tamara Braz, Esq. on February 27, 2025. Please allow this letter to serve as ASIC’s response to the civil remedy notice. In the CRN, Complainants allege that ASIC violated three Florida Statutes. ASIC denies these allegations and denies any other alleged acts of bad faith and/or violations of Florida law. I. STATEMENT OF FACTS On August 10, 2023, Mr. and Mrs. Lopez reported a property insurance claim to ASIC for damage to real property located at 14223 Amelia Island Way, Orlando, FL 32828 (“Property”). Specifically, Mr. and Mrs. Lopez reported water damage from a bathroom leak that allegedly occurred on July 17, 2023. Upon receiving notice of the claim, ASIC assigned claim number 00104149972 to the claim and assigned adjuster Mark Mulville to investigate the claim. On August 11, 2023, Mr. Mulville contacted Mr. and Mrs. Lopez to schedule an inspection. On August 17, 2023, Mr. Mulville inspected the Property and found the entire bathroom gutted. As he was unable to inspect the alleged damaged areas, Mr. Mulville requested photos before the bathroom was gutted and a plumbing invoice or report showing what was leaking/repaired. No such documentation was ever received. ASIC subsequently and properly denied coverage of the claim due to these factors. Within ASIC’s denial letter, it instructed Mr. and Mrs. Lopez’s representative to contact ASIC if there was any additional information that it would like ASIC to consider. ASIC does not have a record of receiving additional documentation for claim no. 00104149972 other than the materials received during the accompanying lawsuit. Upon receipt of this CRN, ASIC, through its undersigned counsel has been in communication with Mr. and Mrs. Lopez through her represented counsel, to address any potential supplemental claim for damages. II. THE POLICY ASIC issued insurance policy number 2MR055013503 (“Policy”) to Named Insured PHH Mortgage Services. The Named Insured Mortgagee purchased the Policy from ASIC to protect its collateral identified as real property located at 14223 Amelia Island Way, Orlando, FL 32828. Daisy Lopez is identified as the “Borrower” under the Policy. The Policy provides coverage pursuant to its terms, conditions, exclusions, and endorsements following the Named Insured’s and Mr. and Mrs. Lopez’ compliance with the required duties after loss. III. THE CRN The Complainants’ CRN is deficient under Florida law and generally lacks merit. Florida law requires a complainant to “state with specificity” “[t]he facts and circumstances giving rise” to the alleged violations. Fla. Stat. § 624.155(3)(b)(2); see Rousso v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., No. 10-CV-20554, 2010 WL 7367059, at *5–6 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 13, 2010) (finding that uninformative recitations do not meet the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 624.155 because they do not specifically inform the insurer of the facts underlying the alleged violations or the appropriate corrective action). Here, the Complainants’ form CRN allegations improperly cite various statutory provisions which ASIC allegedly violated but fails to provide facts with the required specificity to support the Complainants’ general conclusions that the “insurer” violated the statutes. Additionally, the CRN contains impermissible cures or remedies which are improper and do not provide ASIC with the ability to cure the same. See Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1283 (Fla. 2000) (finding that the only permissible cure for a CRN is payment of the alleged contractual amount due to the insured pursuant to the express terms and conditions of the policy after all of the conditions precedent of the insurance policy in respect to payment are fulfilled). Notwithstanding the CRN’s fatal deficiencies, ASIC specifically denies the Complainants’ meritless allegations and alleged violations of the Florida Statutes 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), (3)(b), and (3)(d): 1. Florida Statute § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a). The Complainants allege that ASIC failed to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. The CRN fails to identify which claim investigation standards should have been adopted or implemented, or how/why ASIC’s claim investigation standards were somehow deficient. As discussed above, ASIC promptly and diligently performed a thorough inspection and evaluation of the property, adjusted the reported loss appropriately, and issued a coverage determination promptly within thirty days of the loss being reported. ASIC even asked for additional information and documents to further evaluate the claim, none of which were ever received. Accordingly, ASIC denies that its claim investigation standards were improper or deficient. 2. Florida Statute § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b). The Complainants allege that ASIC misrepresented pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. The Complainants fail to allege what specific facts and/or insurance policy provisions related to coverage that ASIC misrepresented. ASIC denies that it misrepresented any pertinent facts of the underlying insurance policy, and notes that within its coverage determination, it cited specific provisions to allow the Complainants’ representatives to review same. 3. Florida Statute § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d). The Complainants allege that ASIC denied the claim without conducting a reasonable investigation based upon available information. The Complainants complaint is false. On August 17, 2023, ASIC conducted an inspection. At the inspection, ASIC requested additional photographs and documents related to the alleged plumbing leak to further evaluate the claim in light of Complainants gutting the entire bathroom prior to inspection. No such photographs or documents were ever produced. Accordingly, ASIC conducted a reasonable investigation based on the information available at the time. The Complainants’ CRN further alleges that ASIC can cure these alleged violations by paying the amount of $6,247.23 along with an unspecified amount of interest, all without any supporting documentation. However, Florida law clearly requires specificity in the Civil Remedy Notice, which the Complainants failed to do. See generally, Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So. 3d 875, 878 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (“the plain language of section 624.155(3)(b) instructs the policyholder to ‘state with specificity’ information in the notice”). Without the specificity required by Florida law, the Complainants fail to provide ASIC with the opportunity to cure the alleged violations, which ASIC disputes overall. Moreover, the CRN requires several impermissible cures, including: (1) paying an unspecified amount of interest, (2) conducting a proper investigation, and (3) reviewing and responding to all communications from the Insureds and their agents. See Talat Enterprises, Inc., 753 So. 2d at 1283. Lastly, in the CRN, the Complainants fail to account for their failure to comply with post-loss conditions, including but not limited to, failing to (1) give prompt notice of the claimed damages, (2) allow ASIC to inspect the claimed damage, (3) keep an accurate record of expenditures, and (4) provide ASIC with requested documentation. Accordingly, the Complainants failure to comply with the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 624.155 and Florida law renders the CRN deficient and fatally defective. IV. CONCLUSION In summary, the allegations that ASIC committed violations under the Civil Remedy Statute are unsupported by the facts and circumstances in this case and lack any merit. As explained above, ASIC denies any violation of these statutory sections and denies any other alleged acts of bad faith and/or violations of Florida law. Should you need any additional information, please contact the undersigned. Submitted by: Bradley J. Aiken, Esq. Kristen M. Hefley, Esq. Aiken Law PC 2385 N.W. Executive Center Drive, Suite 400 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Counsel for American Security Insurance Company
brad.aiken@aiken.law 05-16-2025 Attorney Tamara Braz, on behalf of Daisy & Milton Lopez, has agreed to a 30-day extension, from the original deadline of May 19, 2025 to June 18, 2025, for American Security Insurance Company to submit its response to the Civil Remedy Notice. Submitted by: Bradley J. Aiken, Esq., Aiken Law PC, Attorney for American Security Insurance Company, 2385 NW Executive Center Drive, Suite 400, Boca Raton, FL 33431. Telephone: 561.234.4688. Email: brad.aiken@aiken.law
brad.aiken@aiken.law 04-24-2025 Attorney Tamara Braz, on behalf of Daisy & Milton Lopez, has agreed to a 20-day extension, from the original deadline of April 28, 2025 to May 19, 2025, for American Security Insurance Company to submit its response to the Civil Remedy Notice. Submitted by: Bradley J. Aiken, Esq., Aiken Law PC, Attorneys for Defendant American Security Insurance Company, 2385 NW Executive Center Drive, Suite 400, Boca Raton, FL 33431. Telephone: 561.234-4688. Email: brad.aiken@aiken.law.
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