Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     808904
Filing Accepted:  2/28/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
PLOSZAY   First Name   JOHN AND HELEN
Street Address * 3567 VIA MONTANA WAY
City, State Zip * NORTH FORT MYERS, FL 33917
Email Address * KIMPLOSZAY@GMAIL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   PLOSZAY   First Name   JOHN AND HELEN
Policy # * HOH615720 Claim #* H010037136
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* MARKER First Name * SHAUN Initial J
Street Address* ONE NORTH CLEMATIS STREET, SUITE 510
City, State Zip* WEST PALM BEACH , FL 33401
Email Address * SMARKER@MERLINLAWGROUP.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   HERITAGE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 14407
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* OFFICERS, SUPERVISORS, AND OR MANAGEMENT OF HERITAGE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, INCLUDING ALL CLAIMS REPRESENTATIVES, ADJUSTERS, LOSS CONSULTANTS, ENGINEERS, EXPERTS, AND TARA RIDGE, DARREN FRASE, EFI GLOBAL, RICHARD HARB.
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
Claim Denial
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)(2) Making claims payments to insureds or beneficiaries not accompanied by a statement setting forth the coverage under which payments are being made.
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)(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.
* 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 coverage provisions; additional coverages; duties in event of loss policy provisions; all terms and conditions of Section I of the insurance policy; the insurance policy's definition section; the insurance policy's exclusion of coverage provisions; loss payment policy provision; loss settlement provision; the declarations page; we will adjust all losses with you.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“Heritage”) has breached this duty by its handling of the Insureds’, John and Helen Ploszay’s, Claim of Loss (Claim Number H010037136; D.O.L. 10/9/24). Heritage has failed and/or refused to thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigate and evaluate the Insured’s insurance claim for damages. On or about October 9, 2024, the Insured submitted a claim to Heritage for damages sustained as a result of Hurricane Milton. We have identified the following instances of bad faith conduct on the part of your company: • Purposefully minimizing the value of the claim by using biased estimating software/pricing and low-balling the cost of repairs. Specifically, estimations and repair costs have been purposefully devalued to the benefit of the insurance company despite knowledge that these costs are woefully deficient. • Implementing a claim handling process geared solely to the minimization of roof related and interior damages. Specifically, taking a hardline stance on repairability in lieu of roof replacement regardless of evidence supporting the latter. This scheme is meant solely to benefit the carrier while hindering the insured from obtaining just compensation for the loss. • Refusing to pay for necessary repairs and attempting to coerce us into accepting a lower settlement amount by failing to properly consider all applicable statutes and building code requirements both at the state and local level. • Misrepresenting to the Insured the roof can be repaired and does not need replacement. • Heritage Property and Casualty Insurance Company deliberately and purposefully hired a biased engineering firm, EFI Global, which is routinely used by Heritage to render decisions in which the roof of the properties, as in this case, can be repaired and does not need replacement. • Failing to act promptly by purposefully delaying the issuance of any payment due and owing to the Insureds. • Willfully denying the claim and withholding benefits without a reasonable basis based on a fair unbiased investigation. • Heritage assigned the claim to a field adjuster to render a below the deductible estimate in a coordinated attempt to extend its statutory obligations and avoid payment to the Insured in accordance with the policy. • Failure to provide a timely, adequate and/or fair unbiased explanation to the Insureds for the lack of payment for their claim for damages sustained to the subject property as a result of Hurricane Milton. • Failure to acknowledge that the Currier USA Brand concrete tiles installed on the structure no longer have an active State of Florida Notice of Acceptance. • Failure to acknowledge and account for all fresh fractured tiles, loose ridge and hip caps, de-bonded tiles, and wind-shifted tiles as a result of wind from Hurricane Milton. • Failure to acknowledge that given the extent of the damage to the roof, and based on a reasonable degree of certainty, proper remediation of the wind-related damages from Hurricane Milton cannot return the residential proofing system to its pre-loss conditions and will require complete replacement of all tiles, underlayment and flashing installed at the subject residence. These actions on the part of your company are unacceptable, and are in violation of our insurance policy and the duty of good faith and fair dealing that Heritage owes to its policyholders. Based on conduct to date, these practices occur with such frequency as to constitute a general claims handling process/business practice imbedded within the company’s management of Hurricane Milton claims. To date, notwithstanding the Insureds’ pleas otherwise, Heritage has continued to refuse to acknowledge its obligation to tender all insurance proceed monies due and owing the Insureds or assist the Insureds in mitigation of the damages. The insurer has failed and refused to acknowledge coverage and restore the Insured to his pre-loss condition. Heritage has sufficient information upon which to evaluate the Insureds’ claim for damages, and certainly has been provided with an independent means by which to determine the amount of loss. The Insureds have otherwise fully complied with the insurer's requests for post-loss compliance. Heritage has not properly paid all of the covered damages. These actions by Heritage occur with such frequency to indicate a general business practice of the company. The Insureds have complied with the policy of insurance and Florida law, and Heritage continues to wrongfully refuse to tender the insurance proceeds that are due and owing them. The concept of insurance is the granting of timely and prompt indemnity or security against a contingent loss. Florida Statutes section 624.02 defines "insurance" as a contract whereby one undertakes to indemnify another or pay 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 Insureds may be put back into the position they were in prior to the loss as quickly as possible. Heritage breached this duty. The Insureds were and still are forced to expend out of pocket monies to submit the insurance claim to force Heritage to honor its obligations under the insurance policy to pay all the insurance proceeds due and owing them. Heritage has clearly displayed bad faith in its handling, processing, and wrongful delay of this claim. The Insureds merely request that Heritage "adjust the loss" with them in accordance with the policy of insurance for which Heritage has accepted a premium, and in accordance with Florida law. Heritage’s conduct has been reckless and unfair to its Insureds and has caused and continues to cause additional damages. We demand that Heritage immediately take steps to rectify the situation and handle this claim in a fair and appropriate manner. This includes providing full and fair compensation for the damages incurred and for any additional costs and expenses incurred as a result of Heritage's bad faith conduct, including but not limited to, fees and costs related to the retention of personnel/counsel required to challenge Heritage’s improper handling of this claim. [As of this moment, the damages found and evaluated by the insured(s) value at minimum $114,013.91, and we request payment in that sum as a curative measure to the conduct described herein.]
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
ncarlisle@heritagepci.com 04-18-2025 April 18, 2025 VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION Florida Department of Insurance Civil Remedy Section 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Complainant: JOHN AND HELEN PLOSZAY Insured: JOHN AND HELEN PLOSZAY Insurer: Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company DFS File No.: 808904 Claim No: H010037136 Policy No.: HOH615720 Dear Madam and/or Sir: Please allow this correspondence to serve as Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company’s (“Heritage”) official response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation (“Notice”), Filing Number 808904, filed on behalf of Heritage’s insured JOHN AND HELEN PLOSZAY (“Complainant”). The Notice was accepted by the Department on February 28, 2025. While Heritage welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Notice filed concerning this claim, it responds to it specifically denying each and every allegation contained in the Notice. Heritage believes that the Notice should be rejected and returned by the Department of Financial Services as it fails to comply with the specific information requirements as set forth in Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation document provisions as promulgated in Florida Statute §624.155 and Florida Case law. The Notice fails to inform Heritage whether it had been given to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by Florida Statute §624.155 and Florida Case law. History of Claim For clarification, Heritage provides a brief history of the claim: Subject to its terms, endorsements, limitations, exclusions, and conditions, the Complainant was issued Policy HOH615720 (“Policy”) for the property at 3567 VIA MONTANA WAY, NORTH FORT MYERS, FL 33917 (“Property”). The Policy of Insurance applies to direct physical loss of or damage to covered property at the premises described in the Declarations of the Policy or resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss as described in the Policy. Upon receiving the Complainant’s first notice of loss on December 4, 2024, claiming damages from Hurricane Milton occurring on October 9, 2024, Heritage promptly assigned claim number H010037136. On the same day the loss was reported, Heritage issued its acknowledgment letter and Bill of Rights to the Complainant. Moving forward, Heritage’s representative coordinated an inspection of the damage to the Property caused by the Hurricane. Complainant requested the inspection to occur on December 7, 2024, and the on-site inspection documented the interior and exterior conditions of the property. After conducting a reasonable investigation based upon available information, on January 31, 2024, Heritage advised Complainant that it was extending partial coverage for repairs under the policy. Heritage promptly provided a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of the basis in the insurance policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for partial denial of the claim. In accordance with its obligations under §627.70131, Fla. Stat., a letter including a written explanation of the coverage decision was sent to Complainant on January 31, 2024, which included pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. Because the amount of the estimate to repair the property was less than Complainant’s applicable deductible, no payment was sent Due to a dispute in coverage, heritage reopened the claim to review any new documentation submitted. On April 9, 2025, Heritage maintained its previous coverage decision. As previously stated, Heritage has adjusted the subject claim at all times in accordance with the insurance policy and Florida Statute. To date, Heritage has not received any information that would alter its understanding of the loss or coverage. Alleged Reasons for the Notice In accordance with Fla. Stat. §624.155, the Civil Remedy Notice requires the Complainant, “to indicate all statutory provisions alleged to have been violated.” The Notice alleges the reasons for the Notice are the following: Claim Denial The Notice fails to state instances of “claim denial" practice occurred; therefore, it lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute 624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Claim Delay The Notice fails to state instances of “claim delay" practice occurred; therefore, it lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute 624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Unfair Trade Practice The Notice fails to state instances of “unfair trade" practice occurred; therefore, it lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute 624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Alleged Violations of Statutory Provisions Further, the Notice filed in this matter alleges Heritage violated the following statutory provisions: • §624.155(1)(b)(1): Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its Complainant and with due regard for his or her interests. Response: The Notice does not provide any specifics by way of who, when and how Heritage committed this violation and therefore fails to comply with the specificity required by Florida Statute §624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Accordingly, and as indicated by the facts stated above, Heritage has at all times acted fairly and honestly. Further, Heritage has conducted a reasonable investigation based on available information and made a coverage determination in reference to Complainant’s claim based upon the information and documentation obtained and/or received by Heritage during its investigation of the claim and the subject policy. The documentation and information received do not support a fully covered loss as demanded by Complainant. Therefore, this is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. Regardless, Heritage denies the allegations contained herein. • §624.155(1)(b)(2): Making claims payments to insureds or beneficiaries not accompanied by statement setting forth the coverage under which payments are being made. Response: The Notice does not provide any specifics by way of who, when and how Heritage committed this violation and therefore fails to comply with the specificity required by Florida Statute §624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. On the contrary, Heritage records indicate that it never made a payment in this claim to the insured or their beneficiary, as it was a denied claim, and therefore, no statement regarding payment for coverage would be necessary, so it is unclear how this alleged violation is supported here. Accordingly, and as indicated by the facts stated above, Heritage has accompanied all of its payment to insureds or beneficiaries with a statement setting forth coverages. Further, Heritage has conducted a reasonable investigation based on available information and made a coverage determination in reference to Complainant’s claim based upon the information and documentation obtained and/or received by Heritage during its investigation of the claim and the subject policy. The documentation and information received do not support a fully covered loss as demanded by Complainant. Therefore, this is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. Regardless, Heritage denies the allegations contained herein. • §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. Response: The Notice does not provide any specifics by way of who, when and how Heritage committed this violation and therefore fails to comply with the specificity required by Florida Statute §624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Nowhere in the notice does it state when Heritage paid under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage, nor does it state who did it. Accordingly, and as indicated by the facts stated above, Heritage has at all times promptly settled claims. Further, Heritage has conducted a reasonable investigation based on available information and made a coverage determination in reference to Complainant’s claim based upon the information and documentation obtained and/or received by Heritage during its investigation of the claim and the subject policy. The documentation and information received do not support a fully covered loss as demanded by Complainant. Therefore, this is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. Regardless, Heritage denies the allegations contained herein. • §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. Response: The Notice does not provide any specifics by way of who, when and how Heritage committed this violation and therefore fails to comply with the specificity required by Florida Statute §624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Nowhere in the notice does it state what the alleged standards for proper investigations are that Heritage failed to adopt or implement, and/or who failed to adopt and implement the standards. Regardless, Heritage denies the allegations contained herein. Accordingly, and as indicated by the facts stated above, Heritage has at all times acted fairly and honestly, upholding and implementing standards for the proper investigation of claims. Further, Heritage has conducted a reasonable investigation based on available information and made a coverage determination in reference to Complainants’ claim based upon the information and documentation obtained and/or received by Heritage during its investigation of the claim and the subject policy. The documentation and information received do not support a fully covered loss as demanded by Complainant. Therefore, this is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. • 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b): Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. Response: The Notice does not provide any specifics by way of who, when and how Heritage committed this violation and therefore fails to comply with the specificity required. Nowhere in the notice does it state who made the misrepresentations. Furthermore, Florida courts have found that listing nearly all policy provisions on the notice did not satisfy the statute. Fox v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., No. 8:16-CV-3254-T-23MAP, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65123, 2017 WL 1541294, at *2 (M.D.Fla. Apr. 28, 2017). Regardless, Heritage denies the allegations contained herein. Accordingly, and as indicated by the facts stated above, Heritage has at all times acted fairly and honestly in its representation of pertinent facts and insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. Further, Heritage has conducted a reasonable investigation based on available information and made a coverage determination in reference to Complainants’ claim based upon the information and documentation obtained and/or received by Heritage during its investigation of the claim and the subject policy. The documentation and information received and obtained do not support a fully covered loss as demanded by Complainant. Therefore, this is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. • §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c): Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. Response: The Notice does not provide any specifics by way of who, when and how Heritage committed this violation and therefore fails to comply with the specificity required by Florida Statute §624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Regardless, Heritage denies the allegations contained herein. Accordingly, and as indicated by the facts stated above, Heritage has always promptly acknowledged communications and acted promptly with respect to the claim. Further, Heritage has conducted a reasonable investigation based on available information and made a coverage determination in reference to Complainants’ claim based upon the information and documentation obtained and/or received by Heritage during its investigation of the claim and the subject policy. The documentation and information received and obtained do not support a covered loss as demanded by Complainant. Therefore, this is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. • §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d): Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information. Response: The Insureds fail to state who, how and when a claim denial was made without conducting a reasonable investigation based on available information. Therefore, it lacks a factual basis to support this allegation and lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute §624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Regardless, Heritage denies the allegations contained herein. Accordingly, and as indicated by the facts stated above, Heritage has at all times acted fairly and honestly, and conducted a reasonable investigation based on available information. Furthermore, Heritage made a proper coverage determination in reference to Complainant’s claim based upon the information and documentation obtained and/or received by Heritage during its investigation of the claim and the subject policy. The documentation and information received do not support a fully covered loss as demanded by Complainant. Therefore, this is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. • §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. Response: The Complainant fails to state who, how and when Heritage failed to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, or as to partial coverage, the dollar amount or extent of coverage or failed to provide a written statement that the claims is being investigated, upon written request of the insured within 30 days after proof-of-loss statements have been completed. Therefore, it lacks a factual basis to support this allegation and lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute §624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Regardless, Heritage denies the allegations contained herein. Heritage has at all times acted fairly and honestly and has not failed to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and, as to partial coverage, the dollar amount or extent of coverage, nor failed 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. Accordingly, and as indicated by the facts stated above, Heritage has conducted a reasonable investigation based on available information and made a coverage determination in reference to Complainant’s claim based upon the information and documentation obtained and/or received by Heritage during its investigation of the claim and the subject policy. The documentation and information received do not support a fully covered loss as demanded by Complainant. Therefore, this is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. • §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. Response: The Notice fails to specifically identify instances where Heritage failed “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. Therefore, it lacks a factual basis to support this allegation and lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute §624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Regardless, Heritage denies the allegations contained herein. Accordingly, and as indicated by the facts stated above, Heritage has at all times acted fairly and honestly, promptly providing a reasonable explanation in writing to Complainant of the basis in the insurance policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for the denial. Further, Heritage has conducted a reasonable investigation based on available information and made a coverage determination in reference to Complainant’s claim based upon the information and documentation obtained and/or received by Heritage during its investigation of the claim and the subject policy. The documentation and information received do not support a fully covered loss as demanded by Complainant. Therefore, this allegation is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and without merit. • §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g): Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim. Response: The Notice does not provide any specifics by way of who, when and how Heritage committed this violation and therefore fails to comply with the specificity required. Therefore, it lacks a factual basis to support this allegation and lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute §624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Regardless, Heritage denies the allegations contained herein. Accordingly, and as indicated by the facts stated above, Heritage has at all times acted fairly and honestly, promptly notifying the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim. Further, Heritage has conducted a reasonable investigation based on available information and made a coverage determination in reference to Complainants’ claim based upon the information and documentation obtained and/or received by Heritage during its investigation of the claim and the subject policy. The documentation and information received do not support a fully covered loss as demanded by Complainant. Therefore, this is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. • §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h): Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary. Response: The Notice does not provide any specifics by way of who, when and how Heritage committed this violation and therefore fails to comply with the specificity required. Therefore, it lacks a factual basis to support this allegation and lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute §624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Regardless, Heritage denies the allegations contained herein. Accordingly, and as indicated by the facts stated above, Heritage has at all times acted fairly and honestly, clearly explaining the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information was necessary Further, Heritage has conducted a reasonable investigation based on available information and made a coverage determination in reference to Complainant’s claim based upon the information and documentation obtained and/or received by Heritage during its investigation of the claim and the subject policy. The documentation and information received do not support a fully covered loss as demanded by Complainant. Therefore, this is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. Request to Reject Notice Florida Statute §624.155(3)(b)(2) requires the Complainant to “describe the facts and circumstances giving rise to the insurer’s violation” to enable the insurer to investigate and resolve the claim. Contrary to the requirement set forth in the statute, this Notice contains overbroad and incorrect allegations, which stem only from the Complainant’s opinions regarding the value of their own claim and, therefore, the Complainant’s opinions regarding Heritage’s adjustment of this claim. Florida Statute §624.155(3)(b)(4) requires the Complainant to refer to specific policy language that is relevant to the alleged violation, if any. Moreover, the Notice contains a list of violations that Heritage has allegedly committed but fails to provide an adequate basis in support of those allegations and, on that basis alone, fails to satisfy the basic requirements of an otherwise proper Notice. Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021); Fla. Stat. §§ 624.155 and 626.9541. Strict construction of §624.155 demands a specificity level of compliance with the requisite provision of information to the Department and the insurer. See id; See also Marques v. Heritage Property & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 56 2020 CA 000805, 2021 WL 3473940, at 2 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Aug. 02, 2021). As such, the Notice does not comply with Florida law and is legally insufficient. Furthermore, the Complainant’s Notice seeks cures for the alleged defects. However, the “cures” sought are improper pursuant to Florida Case law. Specifically, the case of Talat Enterprises, Inc., v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 753 So.2d 1278, 1281 (Fla. 2000), provides that the scope of what can be “cured” is limited to the alleged non-payment of the contractual amount due the Complainant. Talat also commented that “[i]t naturally follows that for there to be a ‘cure,’ what had to be ‘cured’ is the non-payment of the contractual amount due the Complainant. In the context of a first-party insurance claim, the contractual amount due to the Complainant is the amount owed 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....” As a result, only the demanded “cures” relating to the payment for covered damages are proper and legal. The purpose of the Civil Remedy Notice is to provide the insurer notice of the issue its Complainants have with the claim and what it is seeking to remedy that issue. However, it is important to note that Insurers are not required to pay any amount demanded by their Complainants to avoid a bad-faith claim. Rousso v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82328, at *14-15 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 13, 2010). Similarly to Rousso, the Notice reflects a “shotgun-blast effort to hit a lot of targets with a single salvo. This approach is contrary to the purpose of the statute.” The Notice must reflect a good-faith effort to inform Heritage of how it has fallen short of its obligations under the policy and what it can do to fix its shortcomings. Thus, the Notice is insufficient as a matter of law. Under §624.155, Heritage is entitled not only to a clear proposed solution, but also more and accurate details about how Heritage fell short of its obligations to provide coverage pursuant to the terms of the insurance agreement. As such, the Notice is deficient, and the Complainant has failed to comply with several conditions precedent to bringing a claim under §624.155. In closing, Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company believes that the Notice should be rejected and returned by the Department of Financial Services due to its failure to comply with Florida Statute §624.155 and Florida Case law. Moreover, regardless of the rejection, Heritage denies all allegations contained in the Notice and submits there are no violations. While this response is meant to be comprehensive, Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company’s response above is based upon the limited information provided in the Notice and the information we have to date. If the Complainant feels that Heritage does not have all the facts, please inform Heritage immediately. Sincerely, /s/ Tamara Schweinsberg Tamara Schweinsberg, Esq. Senior Claims Counsel Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Co. Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation Response
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