Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     809535
Filing Accepted:  3/4/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
KUJALA   First Name   KENT AND KAREN
Street Address * 13824 LILY PAD CIRCLE
City, State Zip * FORT MYERS, FL 33906
Email Address * KENTKUJALA@GMAIL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   KUJALA   First Name   KENT AND KAREN
Policy # * KIN-HO-FL-112520428 Claim #* HO-4594627
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* SMITH First Name * RYAN Initial
Street Address* 350 N LAKE DESTINY ROAD
City, State Zip* MAITLAND , FL 32751
Email Address * RSMITH@ITSABOUTJUSTICE.LAW
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   KIN INTERINSURANCE NETWORK
NAIC Company Code 16603
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* SASHA KNIGHT
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Unfair Trade Practice
Claim Delay
* 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)(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 1 - Property Coverages – Coverage A – Dwelling Section 1 – Perils Insured Against – Coverage A-Dwelling and Coverage B-Other Structures Section 1- Conditions – Loss Settlement Section 1 – Conditions –Loss Payment
 
* 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 September 28, 2022, Kent and Karen Kujala (“Insured”), suffered damage to their home located at 13824 Lily Pad Circle, Fort Myers, FL 33906 as a result of Hurricane Ian. Prior to the loss, KIN Insurance company (hereinafter, "KIN"), had issued a policy of insurance (Policy No.: KIN-HO-FL-112520428) for the Insureds’ property. Said policy, which was issued prior to the loss, was in full force and effect and afforded coverage for damage caused by the loss. KIN was timely notified of the loss by the Insureds and assigned claim number HO-4594627.  During the course of KIN's investigation, the Insureds made their property available for inspection, provided facts and information surrounding the loss, including but not limited to proof of repairs and their efforts to protect the property from further damage, and submitting to a recorded statement.  The insureds further submitted all requested documentation in their possession in response to KIN's March 20, 2024 request for information - a request which KIN's corporate representative (during his March 4, 2025 deposition) admitted had been fully complied with and was not supplemented with any other requests for information.  Despite fully cooperating with KIN's investigation, KIN inexplicably failed to extend coverage for the entirety of the Insureds’ insurance claim even though the facts of the claim made known to KIN and the policy language clearly demonstrate extensive covered damage to property. KIN apparently came to its coverage determination based solely upon the decision of photographs by its desk adjuster -- Sasha Knight.  In doing so, KIN deliberately ignored relevant facts and information proving that replacement of the roof and windows were necessary, and were caused and directly attributable to Hurricane Ian.  Even more concerning, the insureds advised KIN of the damages during their recorded statement -- which was requested by and given to KIN the day after the claim had been reported.  For more than twenty minutes, the insureds answered KIN's questions and advised of the damages that they were alleging.  In addition to conducting a substandard inspection of the covered damages to the roof, KIN also documented damages to the windows of the property and the screen enclosure.  Notwithstanding their adjuster's documentation of damages to covered areas of the premises, KIN wholly disregarded the covered portions of damage to the roof.  More troublesome is the fact that KIN entirely ignored the claimed window damages at the property, by failing to prepare an estimate of the necessity to replace the windows.  During the deposition of KIN's corporate representative, the witness openly admitted that there were no cause or origin determinations made as to the covered/excluded portions of the roof.  The witness further admitted that there was no cause/origin determination made or utilized with respect to the windows; perhaps it is because KIN entirely ignored relevant information provided to it regarding the investigation and decided to selectively adjust portions of the loss in a manner which suited its needs -- which is to retain premiums which it does by arbitrarily denying claims. Throughout this claim, KIN has engaged in a calculated effort to purposely downplay and misrepresent evidence at the property to avoid tendering payment on a claim it knew was covered pursuant to the terms of the policy. KIN instead decided to engage in a deliberate tactic of hide and seek investigations of the insured's claim for widespread Hurricane damage on the roof and windows.  As of the date of this writing, KIN continues to engage in bad faith hide and seek/sword and shield tactics by now contesting the insureds' rightful inquiry to obtain the entirety of the materials which KIN relies upon to deny the subject claim. It is common knowledge that KIN chooses to engage in calculated conduct by handling and adjusting claims in bad faith. At no point in this claim has KIN acted honestly or fairly towards its Insureds. Instead, KIN and its representatives have failed to conduct a proper investigation of the loss, misrepresented the scope of damages and repairs, and misapplied policy provisions to wrongfully deny payment for the Insureds’ claim.  It has become a general business practice of KIN to not implement proper claims handling procedures, to hire consultants that routinely ignore or intentionally misidentify relevant evidence, and to not settle claims in good faith when under all circumstances it should have. As is the case here, it is a pattern and practice for KIN to arbitrarily deny claims based upon misleading information withheld by KIN.  KIN does this as part of a calculated measure to force insureds into litigation by way of deliberately retaining premiums and deciding to not pay legitimate claims. Furthermore, KIN's actions are part of a broader scheme to delay claims and avoid issuing payment that it knows is owed to its insureds. KIN's actions are widespread sufficient to constitute a general business practice, which come to the detriment of policy holders to restore their property to pre-loss condition.  In order to cure this civil remedy notice, KIN  must acknowledge that the Insureds’ property was damaged by Hurricane Ian and that replacement of the roof and windows as covered by the policy. KIN must further tender the full contractual amount owed to replace the roof and window damages to the property pursuant to the terms of the policy. Payment should be issued to the “Cohen Law Group Trust Account f/b/o Kent and Karen Kujala.” The written explanation of benefits and payment should be sent to the Insureds’ counsel’s office at 350 N. Lake Destiny Road, Suite 300, Maitland, FL 32751.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
kristen.henderson@kin.com 05-02-2025 While Kin Interinsurance Network believes that the Civil Remedy Notice fails to comply with the requirements of Florida Statute §624.155 and Florida Case law, it has responded to the Notice in writing to Ryan Smith on May 01 2025.
jbenwitt@tlsslaw.com 05-01-2025 Rachel E. Colquhoune, Esquire, on behalf of KIN Interinsurance Network, responded to the Civil Remedy Notice in letter format on May 1, 2025, via electronic mail to: Ryan Smith, Esq. Cohen Law Group, P.A. 350 N. Lake Destiny Road Maitland, FL 32751 Email: rsmith@itsaboutjustice.law Insured(s): Kent Kujala and Karen Kujala Claim Number: HO-4594627 Policy Number: KIN-HO-FL-112520428 Insurance Co. Kin Interinsurance Network Date of Loss: September 28, 2022 Loss Report Date: March 19, 2024 Dear Ryan Smith: This correspondence constitutes Kin Interinsurance Network’s response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation # 809535 you filed on behalf of Kent and Karen Kujala, regarding the above-listed claim. Kin Interinsurance Network welcomes the opportunity to respond to this Civil Remedy Notice and specifically denies each and every allegation contained therein. Kin Interinsurance Network also asserts the Civil Remedy Notice fails to comply with the specific notice and information requirements set forth in both § 624.155, Florida Statutes, and Florida Case law. First the Notice only named one individual with specificity who is involved in the purported violation, as required by §624.155(3)(b)3. More than one individual was well known to Mr. Smith to be involved with the claim. Second, the Civil Remedy Notice requires the Complainant, pursuant to § 624.155(3)(b)(1), Fla. Stat., to state with specificity the statutory provision, including the specific language of the statute, which Kin Interinsurance Network allegedly violated. The Notice includes numerous statutory provisions that could be claimed against any insurance company, regardless of whether they are relevant or applicable to the alleged facts contained in the Notice. Because the Civil Remedy Notice fails to identify any specific statutes, it does not comply with § 624.155(3)(b)(1). Next, the Notice fails to set forth any specific policy language relevant to the purported violations as required by § 624.155(3)(b)(4), Fla. Stat. The Notice states lists various generic headings of the policy. This is just a broad outline of various provisions of the insurance policy without specifying which are relevant to the purported violations. By failing to identify any specific policy provision(s), the Civil Remedy Notice does not comply with § 624.155(3)(b)(4). Additionally, § 624.155(3)(b)(2), Fla. Stat., requires the Notice to state with specificity the facts and circumstances giving rise to the purported violations. This notice provides template, unsupported and incorrect allegations and fails to provide the requisite specificity required by § 624.155(3)(b)(2), Fla. Stat. Without the benefit of specific facts and circumstances giving rise to the purported violations, Kin Interinsurance Network is unable to provide a detailed response and the Notice fails to satisfy § 624.155(3)(b)(2). The Civil Remedy Notice also violates § 625.155, Fla. Stat., as it fails to provide or identify what particular remedy the Insureds are seeking from Kin Interinsurance Network. One purpose of the Civil Remedy Notice is to provide the insurer with the ability to cure any alleged issues, by paying damages or correcting the circumstances giving rise to the purported violations. This Notice fails to identify a specific remedy or cure; therefore, Kin Interinsurance Network is unable to cure the Notice or correct any circumstances giving rise to the purported violations. Lastly, the Civil Remedy Notice also contains “cures” that are unavailable under either the insurance policy or the Civil Remedy Statute. Additionally, the Notice fails to specifically identify a “cure” amount. For the aforementioned reasons, Kin Interinsurance Network believes the Civil Remedy Notice does not comply with § 624.155, Fla. Stat. Additionally, Kin Interinsurance Network denies any and all allegations contained in the Civil Remedy Notice. Kin Interinsurance Network’s response is based on the limited information provided in the Civil Remedy Notice and the information we have to date. If Kent and Karen Kujala feel we do not have all the facts, we ask that they please inform us immediately. Please note that Kin Interinsurance Network’s response is not necessarily exhaustive and, as a result, it does not preclude us from asserting any other valid reasons for the lack of compliance with § 624.155, Fla. Stat. Additionally, neither this response, nor any act or failure to act on the part of Kin Interinsurance Network, or any agent or representative of Kin Interinsurance Network, should be construed as a waiver of any rights or defenses. This includes, but is not limited to, proper notice and service by Kent and Karen Kujala, or other defenses available by contract or at law. All such rights and defenses are hereby reserved. We believe this response addresses the allegations contained in the Civil Remedy Notice. If you have any questions regarding this matter or need anything further, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Regards, /s/ Rachel E. Colquhoune
jbenwitt@tlsslaw.com 05-01-2025 Rachel E. Colquhoune, Esquire, on behalf of KIN Interinsurance Network, responded to the Civil Remedy Notice in letter format on May 1, 2025, via electronic mail to: rsmith@itsaboutjustice.law Ryan Smith, Esq. Cohen Law Group, P.A. 350 N. Lake Destiny Road Maitland, FL 32751 Email: rsmith@itsaboutjustice.law Insured(s): Kent Kujala and Karen Kujala Claim Number: HO-4594627 Policy Number: KIN-HO-FL-112520428 Insurance Co. Kin Interinsurance Network Date of Loss: September 28, 2022 Loss Report Date: March 19, 2024 Dear Ryan Smith: This correspondence constitutes Kin Interinsurance Network’s response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation # 809535 you filed on behalf of Kent and Karen Kujala, regarding the above-listed claim. Kin Interinsurance Network welcomes the opportunity to respond to this Civil Remedy Notice and specifically denies each and every allegation contained therein. Kin Interinsurance Network also asserts the Civil Remedy Notice fails to comply with the specific notice and information requirements set forth in both § 624.155, Florida Statutes, and Florida Case law. First the Notice only named one individual with specificity who is involved in the purported violation, as required by §624.155(3)(b)3. More than one individual was well known to Mr. Smith to be involved with the claim. Second, the Civil Remedy Notice requires the Complainant, pursuant to § 624.155(3)(b)(1), Fla. Stat., to state with specificity the statutory provision, including the specific language of the statute, which Kin Interinsurance Network allegedly violated. The Notice includes numerous statutory provisions that could be claimed against any insurance company, regardless of whether they are relevant or applicable to the alleged facts contained in the Notice. Because the Civil Remedy Notice fails to identify any specific statutes, it does not comply with § 624.155(3)(b)(1). Next, the Notice fails to set forth any specific policy language relevant to the purported violations as required by § 624.155(3)(b)(4), Fla. Stat. The Notice states lists various generic headings of the policy. This is just a broad outline of various provisions of the insurance policy without specifying which are relevant to the purported violations. By failing to identify any specific policy provision(s), the Civil Remedy Notice does not comply with § 624.155(3)(b)(4). Additionally, § 624.155(3)(b)(2), Fla. Stat., requires the Notice to state with specificity the facts and circumstances giving rise to the purported violations. This notice provides template, unsupported and incorrect allegations and fails to provide the requisite specificity required by § 624.155(3)(b)(2), Fla. Stat. Without the benefit of specific facts and circumstances giving rise to the purported violations, Kin Interinsurance Network is unable to provide a detailed response and the Notice fails to satisfy § 624.155(3)(b)(2). The Civil Remedy Notice also violates § 625.155, Fla. Stat., as it fails to provide or identify what particular remedy the Insureds are seeking from Kin Interinsurance Network. One purpose of the Civil Remedy Notice is to provide the insurer with the ability to cure any alleged issues, by paying damages or correcting the circumstances giving rise to the purported violations. This Notice fails to identify a specific remedy or cure; therefore, Kin Interinsurance Network is unable to cure the Notice or correct any circumstances giving rise to the purported violations. Lastly, the Civil Remedy Notice also contains “cures” that are unavailable under either the insurance policy or the Civil Remedy Statute. Additionally, the Notice fails to specifically identify a “cure” amount. For the aforementioned reasons, Kin Interinsurance Network believes the Civil Remedy Notice does not comply with § 624.155, Fla. Stat. Additionally, Kin Interinsurance Network denies any and all allegations contained in the Civil Remedy Notice. Kin Interinsurance Network’s response is based on the limited information provided in the Civil Remedy Notice and the information we have to date. If Kent and Karen Kujala feel we do not have all the facts, we ask that they please inform us immediately. Please note that Kin Interinsurance Network’s response is not necessarily exhaustive and, as a result, it does not preclude us from asserting any other valid reasons for the lack of compliance with § 624.155, Fla. Stat. Additionally, neither this response, nor any act or failure to act on the part of Kin Interinsurance Network, or any agent or representative of Kin Interinsurance Network, should be construed as a waiver of any rights or defenses. This includes, but is not limited to, proper notice and service by Kent and Karen Kujala, or other defenses available by contract or at law. All such rights and defenses are hereby reserved. We believe this response addresses the allegations contained in the Civil Remedy Notice. If you have any questions regarding this matter or need anything further, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Regards, /s/ Rachel E. Colquhoune
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