Civil Remedy Filing

Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations

Filing Number: 809449

Filing Accepted: 3/4/2025

Print Filing

Complainant

Last/Business Name *

DEGENNARO

First Name

BRITT

Street Address *

800 E BROWARD BLVD, SUITE 510

City, State Zip *

FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301

Email Address *

BD@WEKLAW.COM

Complainant Type: *

Third Party

Insured

Last/Business Name*		PADILLA		First Name
Policy # *		12-1078201-03		Claim #*		12-3026255-24

Attorney

Attorney is Applicable

Last Name*	DEGENNARO First Name * BRITT Initial
Street Address*		800 E BROWARD BLVD, SUITE 510
City, State Zip*		FT LAUDERDALE , FL 33301
Email Address *		BD@WEKLAW.COM

Violation

Insurer Type *		Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer

Insurer Name
Insurer Name*		TYPTAP INSURANCE COMPANY
Insurer Name*
Street Address*
City, State Zip*		,
NAIC Company Code 15885

Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* JOANNE COTTRILL, LITIGATION SPECIALIST (LICENSE #A304586)
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty

Reason for Notice *

	Claim Denial
	Claim Delay
	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)(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.

* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

The policy language in dispute primarily revolves around the following provisions, which TypTap Insurance Company has either misapplied, failed to cite, or misrepresented in denying the claim for tornado-related damage under Claim No. 12-3026255-24: Coverage for Windstorm or Tornado Damage – The policy likely provides coverage for direct physical loss to the property caused by windstorms, including tornadoes, subject to policy exclusions and limitations. The insureds reported significant damage to their property caused by a tornado on October 9, 2024; however, TypTap failed to properly assess or acknowledge this peril in its denial letter. The denial was issued on November 14, 2024, on the vague basis that the damages fell under the deductible, without citing the relevant policy language that purportedly supports this conclusion. If the policy provides coverage for wind-related damage, TypTap’s failure to properly investigate and indemnify the insureds constitutes a breach of contract and bad faith claims handling. Application of the Deductible – The insurer denied the claim on the basis that the damage did not exceed the policy deductible, yet it failed to provide a breakdown or calculation of how the deductible was applied. The policy likely specifies a named storm deductible, hurricane deductible, or windstorm deductible, which would determine the threshold for coverage. However, TypTap’s denial letter did not clarify what deductible amount was used, how the damages were assessed, or why the insureds’ damage estimate was disregarded. This omission suggests a misapplication of the deductible or an arbitrary decision made without a factual basis. Loss Settlement and Adjustment Process – The policy should outline the insurer’s obligation to fairly investigate and settle claims. Florida law and standard policy provisions require the insurer to conduct a reasonable investigation based on all available information. In this case, TypTap failed to properly inspect the damages, disregarded the insureds' public adjuster estimate, and issued a denial without sufficient supporting evidence. If the policy contains provisions requiring the insurer to fairly evaluate all claims and act in good faith during the adjustment process, TypTap’s failure to adhere to these obligations is a direct violation of the policy and Florida law. Exclusions for Wear and Tear, Pre-Existing Damage, or Maintenance Issues – If TypTap relied on policy exclusions to deny coverage, such as exclusions for wear and tear, inadequate maintenance, or pre-existing damage, it failed to identify them in its coverage determination letter. The insurer’s November 14, 2024, denial does not reference any specific exclusions that justify the refusal to pay benefits. The insureds submitted a detailed scope of damages through their public adjuster by October 31, 2024, showing the tornado’s impact on the property. TypTap failed to contest this with any competing expert analysis or independent engineering evaluation, meaning that any exclusion-based denial would have been issued without evidentiary support. Duties of the Insured and Compliance with Post-Loss Obligations – If TypTap is asserting that the insureds failed to meet their post-loss obligations (such as timely reporting, providing requested documents, or mitigating further damage), there is no documented evidence that the insureds failed to comply. The insureds reported the claim within 15 days of the loss, submitted a Sworn Proof of Loss (SPOL), and provided all requested documentation, including a detailed estimate. TypTap never issued any requests for additional information or indicated that the insureds’ compliance was an issue. If the policy requires cooperation and full compliance before indemnification, the insureds have satisfied those requirements, and TypTap’s refusal to honor the claim on these grounds would be in bad faith. Appraisal or Dispute Resolution Provisions – Many policies contain appraisal provisions or alternative dispute resolution clauses that outline the procedure for resolving disagreements over the amount of loss. If the policy contains such a provision, TypTap never invoked it, nor did it attempt to engage in any meaningful discussion regarding damages. Instead, the insurer ignored the public adjuster’s estimate and outright denied the claim, violating the policy’s implied duty of fair dealing.

* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

This Civil Remedy Notice (CRN) is filed pursuant to Florida Statute §624.155, which provides a cause of action against insurance companies for engaging in unfair claim settlement practices, failing to act in good faith in adjusting claims, and violating the insurer’s contractual and statutory obligations. TypTap Insurance Company, as the issuer of policy number 12-1078201-03, has committed multiple acts of bad faith in the handling and adjustment of claim 12-3026255-24, submitted by insureds Lora Padilla and Mike Padilla. The loss occurred on October 9, 2024, as a result of a tornado, which caused significant damage to the insured property. The claim was timely reported on October 24, 2024, and a Letter of Representation (LOR) was submitted by the insureds’ public adjuster, Craig Kossman of Ask An Adjuster, requesting all claim-related documentation and an inspection of the property. The insureds also retained legal counsel, Sapir Elazar of Weisser Elazar & Kantor, PLLC, who subsequently filed a Notice of Intent to Litigate (NOI) on December 13, 2024 after the insurer failed to fairly adjust and pay the claim. Bad Faith Conduct and Failure to Properly Adjust the Claim TypTap Insurance Company has engaged in a pattern of bad faith conduct, including, but not limited to: Failure to Conduct a Prompt and Adequate Investigation: Despite the timely reporting of the claim, TypTap failed to conduct a thorough and reasonable inspection of the property. No field adjuster reports, engineer assessments, or detailed breakdowns of investigative findings were provided to the insureds. The insurer’s coverage determination was issued on November 14, 2024, claiming that the damage fell under the insureds’ deductible, effectively denying the claim without a proper basis. Failure to Consider All Available Evidence and Prejudging the Claim: Ask An Adjuster, acting on behalf of the insureds, provided a comprehensive scope of loss assessment by October 31, 2024, which included a detailed estimate of damages exceeding the policy deductible. Despite this, TypTap refused to acknowledge or meaningfully consider this estimate before issuing its determination. The insurer did not provide any contradictory evidence, such as an engineering report, weather data analysis, or structural assessment, to substantiate its position that the damages were not covered or did not exceed the deductible. Failure to Provide a Reasonable Explanation for the Denial: Under Florida Statute §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), insurers must provide an adequate and detailed explanation of why a claim is denied or partially denied. The November 14, 2024, coverage determination failed to offer a detailed breakdown of the damage assessment, how the deductible was applied, or any specific policy exclusions supporting the decision. Instead, it issued a boilerplate statement that did not provide the insureds with a meaningful explanation. Unreasonable Delay in Adjusting and Resolving the Claim: The insureds took every reasonable step to expedite the claims process, including submitting a notarized Sworn Proof of Loss (SPOL) and an independent damage assessment. Despite this, TypTap did not respond with any payment, counteroffer, or request for further investigation within the required statutory timeframe. The insurer’s unexplained delay directly contributed to the insureds’ inability to remediate their property damage, resulting in continued hardship and financial burden. Failure to Attempt to Settle the Claim in Good Faith: The Notice of Intent to Litigate (NOI) filed on December 13, 2024, outlined TypTap’s failures and demanded proper indemnification under the policy. Instead of addressing these deficiencies, TypTap responded on December 18, 2024, with a lowball offer of $12,000.00—less than 8% of the insureds’ estimated loss of $152,259.00. This offer was unreasonable, arbitrary, and not based on any legitimate assessment of damages, evidencing TypTap’s unwillingness to fairly and timely resolve the claim. Misrepresentation of Policy Rights to Discourage Legal Action: In its December 18, 2024, response, TypTap improperly cited the repeal of Florida Statute Chapter 627.428 to suggest that the insureds would not be entitled to recover attorney’s fees, regardless of the insurer’s conduct or a judgment in favor of the insureds. This misrepresentation was intended to dissuade the insureds from pursuing their legal rights, further exemplifying the insurer’s bad faith tactics. Statutory Violations TypTap’s conduct in handling claim 12-3026255-24 has violated multiple provisions of Florida law, including but not limited to: TypTap Insurance Company has repeatedly demonstrated bad faith in handling Claim No. 12-3026255-24, violating multiple provisions of Florida Statutes §624.155 and §626.9541. The insurer failed to attempt to settle the claim in good faith under §624.155(1)(b)(1) despite having ample opportunity to do so. The insureds, Lora Padilla and Mike Padilla, timely reported their tornado-related loss on October 24, 2024, and provided TypTap with a detailed estimate of damages prepared by their public adjuster, Ask An Adjuster, by October 31, 2024. Instead of properly assessing this estimate and negotiating a fair resolution, TypTap denied the claim outright on November 14, 2024, stating that the damages did not exceed the deductible. This decision was made without a meaningful investigation or any documented effort to resolve the dispute. When the insureds filed a Notice of Intent to Litigate (NOI) on December 13, 2024, TypTap responded on December 18, 2024, with a lowball settlement offer of $12,000.00, which accounted for less than 8% of the insureds’ estimated damages of $152,259.00. This offer, conditioned on the insureds refraining from filing suit, was clearly an attempt to discourage litigation rather than a good-faith effort to resolve the claim. TypTap had the ability and the obligation to resolve the matter fairly but instead chose to delay and undervalue the claim, demonstrating a willful disregard for its duty under Florida law. TypTap also failed to adopt and implement reasonable investigation standards as required under §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a). The insurer did not assign an independent field adjuster or engineer to conduct a thorough inspection of the tornado-related damages, despite the complexity of the claim. There is no evidence that TypTap conducted any structural assessment, engineering analysis, or review of meteorological data to determine the extent of the loss. Instead, the insurer prematurely issued a coverage determination on November 14, 2024, without considering the public adjuster’s detailed estimate, which had already been submitted on October 31, 2024. Furthermore, the denial letter provided no indication that the insurer performed a detailed inspection or analysis before concluding that the damages fell under the deductible. The absence of any documented methodology, combined with the insurer’s failure to acknowledge key evidence submitted by the insureds, demonstrates a complete failure to establish and follow proper investigative procedures, resulting in an unjustified denial. In addition to failing to investigate, TypTap actively misrepresented policy provisions and pertinent facts, violating §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b). The November 14, 2024, denial letter did not cite specific policy provisions to justify the denial, nor did it provide an explanation as to how the deductible was applied in relation to the damages assessed. The insurer’s December 18, 2024, response to the NOI further demonstrated its bad faith by misleading the insureds regarding their legal rights. In that letter, TypTap misrepresented the impact of the repeal of Florida Statute Chapter 627.428, suggesting that the insureds had no right to recover attorney’s fees, even if litigation resulted in a judgment against the insurer. This statement was clearly designed to discourage the insureds from pursuing their claim in court. Moreover, TypTap failed to acknowledge the insureds’ damage estimate or provide any substantive reasoning as to why it rejected the figures presented. By withholding relevant policy details and misleading the insureds regarding their legal rights, TypTap engaged in bad faith misrepresentation to limit its own liability at the expense of its policyholders. TypTap also engaged in unnecessary delays and failed to respond promptly to the insureds’ communications, violating §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c). After the claim was reported on October 24, 2024, Ask An Adjuster promptly submitted a Letter of Representation (LOR), a Sworn Proof of Loss, and a detailed estimate by October 31, 2024. Despite this, TypTap failed to issue any meaningful response until its boilerplate denial letter on November 14, 2024. Between that time and the filing of the Notice of Intent to Litigate (NOI) on December 13, 2024, the insureds and their representatives made multiple inquiries regarding the insurer’s position and requested reconsideration. TypTap ignored these requests and provided no substantive updates, failing to engage in a reasonable dialogue regarding the claim. When it finally responded on December 18, 2024, the insurer issued a lowball settlement offer with no explanation for how the damages were assessed, further delaying resolution and preventing the insureds from obtaining the compensation to which they were entitled. By failing to respond promptly and appropriately, TypTap knowingly prolonged the claims process, forcing the insureds to seek legal action rather than engaging in a timely and fair review. The insurer’s failure to conduct a reasonable investigation before issuing a denial further violates §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d). TypTap denied the claim without thoroughly investigating all available information, instead issuing a determination based solely on an unsupported conclusion that the damages fell below the deductible. There is no evidence that a field adjuster properly assessed the full extent of the tornado-related damages, and the denial letter fails to reference any formal inspection or findings. Furthermore, despite receiving a detailed damage estimate from Ask An Adjuster by October 31, 2024, TypTap ignored this report and provided no counter-estimate or rebuttal explaining why it disagreed with the assessment. A proper investigation would have involved a qualified engineer or field adjuster conducting a detailed structural assessment of the property, yet TypTap failed to provide any such evidence. The complete lack of an independent expert evaluation demonstrates that TypTap did not conduct an investigation that was reasonable or based on the available facts. Lastly, TypTap violated §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f) by failing to provide a reasonable written explanation for the denial of the claim. The November 14, 2024, denial letter was generic and lacked any substantive justification for the insurer’s determination. It merely stated that the damages did not exceed the deductible but did not explain how this conclusion was reached. The letter did not cite specific policy language, did not provide a breakdown of the estimated damages, and failed to explain why the insurer disagreed with the public adjuster’s assessment. When the insureds later sought clarification and reconsideration, the insurer remained silent, providing no further reasoning or additional documentation. Even when responding to the NOI on December 18, 2024, TypTap still failed to provide an adequate explanation, instead offering an arbitrary settlement amount with no factual justification. This failure to provide a clear, reasoned explanation in writing further underscores TypTap’s bad faith handling of the claim. In summary, TypTap Insurance Company engaged in a pattern of misconduct, including failing to settle the claim in good faith, refusing to conduct a reasonable investigation, misleading the insureds about their rights, delaying communications, issuing a wrongful denial without evidence, and failing to provide a proper written explanation for its actions. These violations of Florida law have caused significant harm to the insureds, who were left without the indemnification they were contractually entitled to receive. TypTap had multiple opportunities to act in good faith but instead chose to ignore clear evidence of damages, engage in delay tactics, and offer an inadequate settlement, all of which amount to bad faith insurance practices under Florida laDemand for Cure To cure these violations and avoid further legal action, TypTap Insurance Company must: 1. Issue Full Payment of $152,259.00 to indemnify the insureds for their covered loss. 2. Provide a comprehensive and transparent report detailing how the insurer calculated its initial denial. 3. Re-evaluate the claim in good faith with the assistance of a neutral field adjuster or engineer. 4. Issue a formal apology and acknowledgment that the claim was improperly handled. 5. Cover all legal fees and costs incurred by the insureds in their pursuit of benefits wrongfully withheld. 6. Failure to cure these violations within the statutory 60-day period will result in the insureds proceeding with litigation for breach of contract and bad faith damages under Florida law, including seeking punitive damages and attorney’s fees. TypTap Insurance Company had every opportunity to handle this claim in good faith but instead engaged in delay tactics, improper claim handling, and lowballing offers designed to force insureds into accepting an unjust settlement. The insureds demand that TypTap take immediate corrective action and fulfill its obligations under the policy and Florida law.

Comments

User Id		Date Added		Comment
claims@typtap.com		05-01-2025		This is TypTap Insurance Company’s (“TypTap”) response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (“CRN”) filed by Complainant Britt Degennaro. TypTap reviewed this CRN and conducted a thorough review of the subject claim (“claim”) and confirmed it handled the claim properly. TypTap handled the claim in accordance with the policy and all statutory and regulatory requirements. TypTap denies each allegation of bad faith and improper conduct in the CRN. At all times, TypTap acted in good faith, fairly and honestly toward the Insured and with due regard for the Insured’s interests. Otherwise, the CRN is deficient. Generally, pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 624.155, CRNs must identify and set forth statutory provisions insurers allegedly violated in handling insureds’ insurance claims along with specific, relevant insurance contract language and facts and circumstances. The foregoing provides insurers with notice of alleged statutory violations AND the opportunity to cure such alleged violations. Instead of complying with Florida Statutes, Section 624.155, the Insured’s attorney in the CRN contained an inaccurate recitation of the facts, failed to reference specific, relevant insurance policy language; cited irrelevant statutes; failed to offer a valid cure; and relied on inaccurate and conclusory statements. The CRN is also deficient as a result of the named Complainant Britt Degennaro. Britt Degennaro is not an Insured in relation to the claim and has no connection to the property or allegations raised in the CRN. Lastly, the Complainant’s laundry list of inapplicable statutes is insufficient. Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). Furthermore, the Insured’s attorney filed a lawsuit based on the claim prior to the filing of this CRN. Regardless of the fact there were no violations in this claim, any action by TypTap to cure violations alleged in the CRN could have been used against TypTap in the lawsuit. The foregoing shows abuse by the Insured’s attorney of the CRN and legal processes. Also and generally, the CRN constitutes an abuse of the CRN process, contravenes the purpose of CRNs, which is to promote resolution of issues in insurance claims. The CRN must be rejected, and it cannot serve as the basis of any action against TypTap. Upon request by the Florida Department of Financial Services, TypTap will provide to the DFS detailed correspondence TypTap provided regarding the claim.

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