Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     810011
Filing Accepted:  3/7/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
JEHALUDI   First Name   SICELY AND SHAZAD
Street Address * 2544 SOUTHWEST CALENDER STREET
City, State Zip * PORT SAINT LUCIE, FL 34953
Email Address * JEHALUDI72@GMAIL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   JEHALUDI   First Name   SICELY AND SHAZAD
Policy # * D2LG04X0432488 Claim #* M32324
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* ELAZAR First Name * SAPIR Initial
Street Address* 800 E BROWARD BLVD., STE. 510
City, State Zip* FORT LAUDERDALE , FLORIDA 33301
Email Address * SE@WEKLAW.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   CENTAURI SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 12573
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* N/A
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
Claim Denial
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)(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.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

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

Shazad A Jehaludi and Sicely J. Jehaludi (the "Insureds") purchased an insurance policy ("Policy") from Centauri Insurance ("Centauri"), with effective coverage on the date of the loss, on or about October 9, 2024, and policy number D2LG04X0432488 to insure the property located at 2544 SW Calendar St., Port St. Lucie, FL 34953 (the "Property"). On or about October 9, 2024, the Property suffered severe damage as the result of wind and rain from Hurricane Milton, which caused ensuing damage to the Property, including but not limited to the roof, exterior and interior of the Property (the "Loss"). Centauri was timely notified of the Loss. Centauri acknowledged the claim and assigned claim number M32324 ("Claim") to the Loss. From the onset, it was clear to the Insureds that Centauri had one goal - to reduce or eliminate their liability in the claim. Centauri delivered a coverage determination that misrepresented the material facts of the claim and relied on a faulty and disingenuous inspection report. Centauri thus denied the Insureds the full benefits they are rightfully entitled to without properly evaluating the documentation and proof provided by the insureds. Frustrated with Centauri’s refusal to pay the full damages and confused as to their rights under the policy, the Insureds were forced to retain the services of a public adjuster, 5 Star Public Adjusters and legal counsel. The property was inspected by 5 Star as to the damage to the property and generated a true and accurate estimate of the damage in the amount of $105,911.71. Despite multiple requests from the Insureds requesting that Centauri reconsider their position, Centauri refused to provide the Insureds with the funds needed to return the property to its pre-loss condition. The Insureds have fully complied with all applicable policy provisions requiring cooperation with the investigation, however Centauri is unjustifiably and unreasonably denying full payment to the Insureds. Rather than paying the actual damages and/or trying to settle with the Insureds, Centauri is delaying a prompt resolution of the claim. Additionally, Centauri has not attempted, in good faith, to settle this claim when, under the circumstances, it could and should have done so had it acted fairly and honestly toward the policyholder and with due regard to the policyholder’s interests. As a direct consequence of Centauri’s failure to adjust this loss in good faith and make the necessary supplemental payment, the Insureds continue to be without adequate compensation for the damage sustained at their Property. By stating the above detailed facts, it is clear that Centauri has violated the following Florida Statutes: • 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 Insureds and with due regard for their interest, when Centauri denied the necessary coverage for damages on the Insureds’ claim. • 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, by failing to respond to the Insureds’ public adjuster, and Insureds’ counsel with respect to supplemental requests for payments; • 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) Denying to fully pay claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information. • 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f) Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the Insureds and/or their public adjuster of the basis in the insurance policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for the offer of a compromise settlement; To date, Centauri has in bad faith failed to provide sufficient coverage determination to the Insureds. The Insureds property continues to be in disarray as the Insureds are without funds to put their property into its pre-loss condition. As a direct result of Centauri denial of the required damages for coverage and breach of Florida Statutes, the Insureds were forced to seek the help of licensed professionals to assist them, including a public adjuster and legal counsel. Due to the amount of time that has passed since the date of loss, the information discussed above is irrefutable evidence that Centauri knowingly and intentionally, and in bad faith, delays the claims process to further disadvantage the Insureds. The financial detriment caused to the Insureds is a direct result of Centauri reckless treatment of the claims process. The Insureds submitted all documents requested in a timely fashion, made their property available for inspection, submitted supplemental invoices, estimates and requests. However, Centauri failed at every step of the process to adequately establish or identify the basis of its gross mismanagement of the claim. To deny the Insureds the benefit clearly due and owing under the Policy, for which they have time and time again been making premium payments for and after they have satisfied all their obligations is morally and ethically reprehensible, and reeks of Unfair Claims Practice and Bad Faith. Upon information and belief, the aforementioned actions complained of, among others, were made by Centauri so often as to constitute a general business practice, evidencing a motive to enhance Centauri’s profits, and designed to cause a detrimental effect on its policyholders. The above clearly shows that Centauri adjusted this claim in bad faith and that Centauri is in direct violation of Unfair Claims Practices. This notice was given to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, should Centauri fail to cure the violations set forth in this Civil Remedy Notice within the given cure period. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, Centauri must: (1) Immediately tender all proceeds due and owing the Insureds that are fairly owed to the Insureds under the insurance policy that would reasonably compensate the Insureds in order to put the loss property back to its pre-loss condition; (2) Agree to reimburse the Insureds reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for having to become involved to resolve the claim; (3) Agree to reimburse the Insureds for interest on the amount of benefits that was found to be due and owing to the Insureds, relating back to the date of loss.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
er@beharbehar.com 04-23-2025 April 23, 2025 Submitted Via DFS Online Website Department of Insurance Department of Financial Services Bureau of Consumer Assistance 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-032 Matter: Shazad and Sicely Jehaludi v. Centauri Specialty Insurance Company Claim Number: M32324 Policy Number: D2LG04X0432488 Insureds: Shazad and Sicely Jehaludi Date of Loss: 10/9/2024 Insured Location: 2544 SW Calender St., Port Saint Lucie, FL 34953 RESPONSE TO CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE Dear Sir or Madam: Please be advised that the undersigned represents Centauri Specialty Insurance Company (hereinafter “Centauri”) in the dispute filed by Shazad and Sicely Jehaludi (“Insureds”) on March 7, 2025. This correspondence shall serve as a formal response by Centauri to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation (hereinafter “Civil Remedy Notice” or “CRN”), submitted on behalf of the Insureds. The Insureds reported to Centauri a claim for Hurricane Milton damage on October 10, 2024, and Centauri promptly acknowledged it. That same day, Centauri retained IMS to inspect the property and report on the damages. IMS conducted its initial inspection and estimated $33,718.74 in damages. After applying the deductible and recoverable depreciation, Centauri issued a payment to the Insureds totaling $22,713.22. The Insureds then hired a public adjuster, Five Star Claim Adjusting (“Five Star”), along with various contractors. Five Star estimated the replacement cost value at over $105,911.71, and the Insureds submitted a Proof of Loss for $99,477.71. In response, Centauri obtained a second opinion from All Claims Repairs, Inc., which estimated the replacement cost value at $49,225.04. Centauri thereafter issued an additional payment to the Insureds totaling $12,096.39, after applying the recoverable depreciation. Despite receiving payments from Centauri totaling $34,809.61, the Insureds did not submit proof of any additional costs or completed repairs. Instead, they filed a Notice of Intent demanding $81,764. In response, Centauri offered an additional $5,000. To date, the Insureds have not provided any documentation showing completed repairs or costs incurred beyond Centauri’s payments. As a result, they are not entitled to recoverable depreciation. See Ceballo v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 967 So.2d 811, 815 (Fla. 2007). A. THE CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE The Civil Remedy Notice alleges that Centauri violated the following Florida Statutes: 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) – Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. 4. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) – Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue 5. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) – Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. 6. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) – Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information. 7. 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. Centauri denies any violation of the statutory provisions and denies that it improperly handled the Insureds’ claim or that it failed to settle or adjust the claim in good faith. The CRN statutes require the Insureds to specify the Policy provisions claimed to have been violated. Here, the Insureds generally and vaguely allege the loss settlement provision and loss payment provision were violated. Notably, the Insureds completely fail to cite even a single specific coverage Policy provision violated. Without specificity, it is impossible for Centauri to respond. Given the Insureds’ failure to provide the necessary information to support their CRN, the Department should return the CRN to the Insureds so that they may comply with their legal obligations. Despite the Insureds’ silence on the issue, the following shall serve as a summary of the allegations raised by the Insureds as Centauri best understands the Insureds’ position: The Insureds allege that they purchased a policy from Centauri that was active on the alleged date of loss, October 9, 2024. They assert that Hurricane Milton caused wind and rain damage to their property. They claim they timely reported the loss to Centauri. They further allege, without factual support, that Centauri acted with the intent to minimize liability, misrepresented facts, and relied on a disingenuous inspection report. They also claim that Centauri denied them full benefits under the Policy. The Insureds state that they hired a public adjuster who prepared an estimate totaling $105,911.71. They claim Centauri refused to issue any additional payments and failed to pay for the actual damages. Without citing supporting facts, they allege that Centauri failed to act in good faith and violated Florida Statutes: • §624.155(1)(b)(1) • 624.155(1)(b)(3) • 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) • 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) • 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) • 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), and • 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f). They further allege that Centauri acted in bad faith by failing to issue a sufficient coverage determination, thereby preventing them from repairing their property. They claim Centauri’s denial of coverage compelled them to retain a public adjuster and legal counsel. Without factual support, they also allege that Centauri intentionally delayed the claims process as part of a broader business practice aimed at maximizing profit at the expense of policyholders. The Insureds demand immediate payment of all amounts allegedly owed under the Policy, reimbursement of their attorney’s fees and costs, and compensation for interest on delayed benefits. Centauri stresses that the preceding summary of the Insureds’ allegations are based on the undersigned counsel’s interpretation of the Insureds’ CRN and should not be considered an admission of any of the allegations against Centauri. In fact, the tenor and inference of the Insureds’ allegations are wholly incorrect and without merit. A review of the facts and circumstances surrounding the investigation and claims decisions of the Insureds’ claim reflects that Centauri diligently investigated and adjusted the claim at issue in this dispute. Centauri asserts that all actions taken by it regarding this claim have been made in good faith and for the purpose of fair, just, and timely disposition of the matter. Centauri reserves its right to assert all applicable defenses. B. UNDERLYING FACTS The Insureds attribute the loss to Hurricane Milton and reported their claim to Centauri October 9, 2024. On October 10, 2024, Centauri provided the Insureds a claim acknowledgment letter. On this same date, Centauri retained IMS to inspect the property and report on the damages. On October 11, 2024, IMS prepared an estimate totaling $33,718.74 for interior and exterior damages. On October 13, 2024, Centauri paid the Insureds $22,713.22 after applying the deprecation and the deductible. On October 28, 2024, the Insureds retained public adjuster, Five Star. The Insureds also retained Family First Mold and Water and Mold Alert to conduct interior repairs and mold remediation. On November 4, 2024, Family First Mold and Water informed Centauri its services would exceed $3,000. On November 13, 2024, Mold Alert inspected the property for mold and issued a report to the Insureds. Mold Alert recommended remediation at the front entry. The cost for the testing and report totaled $1,750. On November 23, 2024, Five Star prepared a repair/replace estimate totaling $105,911.77 for interior and exterior damages. On December 10, 2024, the Insureds retained SmartDry to conduct water remediation. SmartDry invoiced the Insureds $4,540.85. Centauri retained Suredge to review the estimates submitted by Family Mold and to prepare comparative evaluations. On December 17, 2024, Family Mold submitted multiple estimates to Centauri for various services, including tarping at $12,109.88 (compared to Suredge’s recommendation of $4,127.50), mold mitigation at $5,351.26 (compared to Suredge’s $40 recommendation), and water mitigation at $13,268.42 (compared to Suredge’s recommendation of $1,339.02). On December 25, 2024, the Insureds provided Centauri a $99,477.71 proof of loss. On January 6, 2025, Centauri retained All Claims to prepare a comparative estimate to the estimate prepared by Five Star. On January 8, 2025, the Insureds filed a Notice of Intent and demanded $81,764.00. On January 9, 2025, Centauri provided the Insureds’ a response to the Notice of Intent by requesting a reinspection. On January 13, 2025, All Claims prepared a comparative estimate totaling $49,225.04. On January 14, 2025, the Insureds agreed to a reinspection. On this same date, Centauri received a Letter of Representation from Weisser Elazar Kantor PLLC. On January 18, 2025, Suredge informed Centauri, Family Mold would not agree to negotiate. On January 30, 2025, the Insureds’ requested a supplemental payment. On January 30, 2025, Centauri paid the Insureds $12,096.39. On February 13, 2025, Centauri offered the Insureds an additional $5,000 to resolve the claim. Centauri followed up with the Insureds on multiple occasions. On February 17, 2025, the Insureds filed a breach of contract lawsuit against Centauri C. LEGAL ANALYSIS The purpose of the civil remedy notice is to give the insurer an opportunity to “cure” a violation of subdivision (1)(a) or (b) of section 624.155 of the Florida Statutes – “not to give the insured a right of action to proceed against the insurer even after the insured’s claim has been paid or resolved.” Lane v. Westfield Insur. Co., 862 So.2d 774, 779 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); see also Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 753 So.2d 1278, 1283 (Fla. 2000). For there to be a “cure” available to an insurer, what ha[s] to be cured is the non-payment of the contractual amount due to the insured. In the context of a first-party insurance claim, the contractual amount due the insured is the amount owed pursuant to the express terms and conditions of the policy after all of the conditions precedent of the insurance policy with respect to payment are fulfilled. Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., supra. It appears that the Civil Remedy Notice was filed in bad faith and is being used solely for the improper purpose of intimidating and coercing Centauri into a settlement of the claim. Centauri maintains that it acted fairly and honestly toward the Insureds with respect to the claimed loss. Centauri denies each of the allegations asserted by the Insureds and specifically states, with regard to each, the following: 1. 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. Centauri denies that it did not act in good faith to settle the claim with the Insureds. Immediately upon receipt of the Insureds’ claim, Centauri retained the appropriate professionals to inspect the property to evaluate the damage and determine whether wind/water damage was present. The Insureds reported to Centauri a claim for Hurricane Milton damage on October 10, 2024, and Centauri promptly acknowledged it. That same day, Centauri retained IMS to inspect the property and report on the damages. IMS conducted its initial inspection and estimated $33,718.74 in damages. After applying the deductible and recoverable depreciation, Centauri issued a payment to the Insureds totaling $22,713.22. The Insureds then hired a public adjuster, Five Star, along with various contractors. Five Star estimated the replacement cost value at over $105,911.71, and the Insureds submitted a Proof of Loss for $99,477.71. In response, Centauri obtained a second opinion from All Claims Repairs, Inc., which estimated the replacement cost value at $49,225.04. Centauri thereafter issued an additional payment to the Insureds totaling $12,096.39, after applying the recoverable depreciation. Despite receiving payments from Centauri totaling $34,809.61, the Insureds did not submit proof of any additional costs or completed repairs. Instead, they filed a Notice of Intent demanding $81,764. In response, Centauri offered an additional $5,000. To date, the Insureds have not provided any documentation showing completed repairs or costs incurred beyond Centauri’s payments. As a result, they are not entitled to recoverable depreciation. See Ceballo v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 967 So.2d 811, 815 (Fla. 2007). 2. 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. Centauri denies any violation of 624.155(1)(b)(3). Immediately upon receipt of the Insureds’ claim, Centauri retained the appropriate professionals to inspect the property to evaluate the damage and determine whether wind damage was present. The Insureds reported to Centauri a claim for Hurricane Milton damage on October 10, 2024, and Centauri promptly acknowledged it. That same day, Centauri retained IMS to inspect the property and report on the damages. IMS conducted its initial inspection and estimated $33,718.74 in damages. After applying the deductible and recoverable depreciation, Centauri issued a payment to the Insureds totaling $22,713.22. The Insureds then hired a public adjuster, Five Star, along with various contractors. Five Star estimated the replacement cost value at over $105,911.71, and the Insureds submitted a Proof of Loss for $99,477.71. In response, Centauri obtained a second opinion from All Claims Repairs, Inc., which estimated the replacement cost value at $49,225.04. Centauri thereafter issued an additional payment to the Insureds totaling $12,096.39, after applying the recoverable depreciation. Despite receiving payments from Centauri totaling $34,809.61, the Insureds did not submit proof of any additional costs or completed repairs. Instead, they filed a Notice of Intent demanding $81,764. In response, Centauri offered an additional $5,000. To date, the Insureds have not provided any documentation showing completed repairs or costs incurred beyond Centauri’s payments. As a result, they are not entitled to recoverable depreciation. See Ceballo v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 967 So.2d 811, 815 (Fla. 2007). 3. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) - Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. Centauri denies any violation of 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a). Immediately upon receipt of the Insureds’ claim, Centauri retained the appropriate professionals to inspect the property to evaluate the damage and determine whether wind damage was present. The Insureds reported to Centauri a claim for Hurricane Milton damage on October 10, 2024, and Centauri promptly acknowledged it. That same day, Centauri retained IMS to inspect the property and report on the damages. IMS conducted its initial inspection and estimated $33,718.74 in damages. After applying the deductible and recoverable depreciation, Centauri issued a payment to the Insureds totaling $22,713.22. The Insureds then hired a public adjuster, Five Star, along with various contractors. Five Star estimated the replacement cost value at over $105,911.71, and the Insureds submitted a Proof of Loss for $99,477.71. In response, Centauri obtained a second opinion from All Claims Repairs, Inc., which estimated the replacement cost value at $49,225.04. Centauri thereafter issued an additional payment to the Insureds totaling $12,096.39, after applying the recoverable depreciation. Despite receiving payments from Centauri totaling $34,809.61, the Insureds did not submit proof of any additional costs or completed repairs. Instead, they filed a Notice of Intent demanding $81,764. In response, Centauri offered an additional $5,000. To date, the Insureds have not provided any documentation showing completed repairs or costs incurred beyond Centauri’s payments. As a result, they are not entitled to recoverable depreciation. See Ceballo v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 967 So.2d 811, 815 (Fla. 2007). 4. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) – Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. Centauri denies any violation of 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b). The Insureds fail to identify any facts or insurance policy provisions they claim were misrepresented, making it impossible for Centauri to respond. Notwithstanding such failure, Centauri denies any violation of 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b). 5. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) – Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. Centauri denies any violation of 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c). Immediately upon receipt of the Insureds’ claim, Centauri retained the appropriate professionals to inspect the property to evaluate the damage and determine whether wind damage was present. The Insureds reported to Centauri a claim for Hurricane Milton damage on October 10, 2024, and Centauri promptly acknowledged it. That same day, Centauri retained IMS to inspect the property and report on the damages. IMS conducted its initial inspection and estimated $33,718.74 in damages. After applying the deductible and recoverable depreciation, Centauri issued a payment to the Insureds totaling $22,713.22. The Insureds then hired a public adjuster, Five Star, along with various contractors. Five Star estimated the replacement cost value at over $105,911.71, and the Insureds submitted a Proof of Loss for $99,477.71. In response, Centauri obtained a second opinion from All Claims Repairs, Inc., which estimated the replacement cost value at $49,225.04. Centauri thereafter issued an additional payment to the Insureds totaling $12,096.39, after applying the recoverable depreciation. Despite receiving payments from Centauri totaling $34,809.61, the Insureds did not submit proof of any additional costs or completed repairs. Instead, they filed a Notice of Intent demanding $81,764. In response, Centauri offered an additional $5,000. To date, the Insureds have not provided any documentation showing completed repairs or costs incurred beyond Centauri’s payments. As a result, they are not entitled to recoverable depreciation. See Ceballo v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 967 So.2d 811, 815 (Fla. 2007). 6. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) – Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information. Centauri denies any violation of 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d). To being, the claim was not denied, Centauri issued significant payments. The Insureds reported to Centauri a claim for Hurricane Milton damage on October 10, 2024, and Centauri promptly acknowledged it. That same day, Centauri retained IMS to inspect the property and report on the damages. IMS conducted its initial inspection and estimated $33,718.74 in damages. After applying the deductible and recoverable depreciation, Centauri issued a payment to the Insureds totaling $22,713.22. The Insureds then hired a public adjuster, Five Star, along with various contractors. Five Star estimated the replacement cost value at over $105,911.71, and the Insureds submitted a Proof of Loss for $99,477.71. In response, Centauri obtained a second opinion from All Claims Repairs, Inc., which estimated the replacement cost value at $49,225.04. Centauri thereafter issued an additional payment to the Insureds totaling $12,096.39, after applying the recoverable depreciation. Despite receiving payments from Centauri totaling $34,809.61, the Insureds did not submit proof of any additional costs or completed repairs. Instead, they filed a Notice of Intent demanding $81,764. In response, Centauri offered an additional $5,000. To date, the Insureds have not provided any documentation showing completed repairs or costs incurred beyond Centauri’s payments. As a result, they are not entitled to recoverable depreciation. See Ceballo v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 967 So.2d 811, 815 (Fla. 2007). 7. 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. Centauri denies any violation of 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f). Immediately upon receipt of the Insureds’ claim, Centauri retained the appropriate professionals to inspect the property to evaluate the damage and determine whether wind damage was present. The Insureds reported to Centauri a claim for Hurricane Milton damage on October 10, 2024, and Centauri promptly acknowledged it. That same day, Centauri retained IMS to inspect the property and report on the damages. IMS conducted its initial inspection and estimated $33,718.74 in damages. After applying the deductible and recoverable depreciation, Centauri issued a payment to the Insureds totaling $22,713.22. The Insureds then hired a public adjuster, Five Star, along with various contractors. Five Star estimated the replacement cost value at over $105,911.71, and the Insureds submitted a Proof of Loss for $99,477.71. In response, Centauri obtained a second opinion from All Claims Repairs, Inc., which estimated the replacement cost value at $49,225.04. Centauri thereafter issued an additional payment to the Insureds totaling $12,096.39, after applying the recoverable depreciation. Despite receiving payments from Centauri totaling $34,809.61, the Insureds did not submit proof of any additional costs or completed repairs. Instead, they filed a Notice of Intent demanding $81,764. In response, Centauri offered an additional $5,000. To date, the Insureds have not provided any documentation showing completed repairs or costs incurred beyond Centauri’s payments. As a result, they are not entitled to recoverable depreciation. See Ceballo v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 967 So.2d 811, 815 (Fla. 2007). Bad Faith The facts at issue do not give rise to a claim of bad faith. The elements of a cause of action for bad faith are: (a) breach of either a common law duty of good faith or a statutory duty, and (b) damages resulting therefrom. There is no single standard by which an insurer’s conduct may be measured. Instead, the Florida Supreme Court has adopted a totality-of-the-circumstances approach in evaluating whether an insurer has acted in bad faith under section 624.155 of the Florida Statutes. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Laforet, 658 So. 2d 55, 63, 1995 Fla. LEXIS 569, 20 Fla. L. Weekly S 173 (Fla. 1995). The Laforet court determined that three factors should be taken into account in determining whether an insurer has acted in bad faith with respect to its insured: (1) the efforts or measures taken by the insurer to resolve the coverage dispute promptly or in such a way as to limit any potential prejudice to the insured; (2) the substance of the coverage dispute or the weight of legal authority on the coverage issue; and (3) the insurer's diligence and thoroughness in investigating the facts specifically pertinent to coverage. When examining Centauri’s conduct in investigating the Insureds’ claim considering these standards, it cannot be disputed that Centauri’s conduct is beyond reproach. Upon the Insureds’ submission of the claim, Centauri retained the appropriate professionals, inspected the Property, and communicated with the Insureds and their representatives throughout the claim process. Centauri asserts that the Civil Remedy Notice was filed in bad faith and is being used as an improper mechanism designed solely for the purpose of intimidating and coercing Centauri to settle the Insureds’ claim. D. SUMMARY OF DEFECTS WITH THE INSUREDS’ CRN • The CRN fails to cite specific policy provisions or provide any evidence to support the alleged violations. Because Florida Statute §624.155 creates a cause of action that does not exist at common law, it must be strictly construed. Talat Enters., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). The requirements for a valid CRN are set forth in Florida Statute §624.155(3), which states in pertinent part: (3)(a) As a condition precedent to bringing an action under this section, the department and the authorized insurer must have been given 60 days’ written notice of the violation. (b) The notice shall be on a form provided by the department and shall state with specificity the following information, and such other information as the department may require: 1. The statutory provision, including the specific language of the statute, which the authorized insurer allegedly violated. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation. 3. The name of any individual involved in the violation. 4. Reference to specific policy language that is relevant to the violation, if any. If the person bringing the civil action is a third-party claimant, she or he shall not be required to reference the specific policy language if the authorized insurer has not provided a copy of the policy to the third-party claimant pursuant to written request. 5. A statement that the notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section A civil remedy notice must be sufficiently specific to provide insurers notice of the alleged wrongdoing so the insurer can cure the same within sixty days. Valenti v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America, 2006 WL 1627276, *2 (M.D. Fla. 2006) (citing Lane v. Westfield Ins. Co., 862 So. 2d 774, 779 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)). Courts have held that if a CRN lacks sufficient specificity, it will be held invalid and cannot form the basis of a bad faith action against the carrier. See, e.g., Fenderson v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 31 So. 3d 915 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). Here, the Insureds fail to provide any factual information or evidence to support the alleged violations and fails to cite to any Policy provisions claimed to provide coverage. Conclusory allegations devoid of factual support make a CRN vague and shotgun in nature, which is hardly the type of specific notice required by the statute that would allow a carrier an opportunity to cure. Heritage Corp. of S. Florida v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 580 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1300 (S.D. Fla. 2008). • The CRN fails to name of any individual involved in the violation The Insureds fail to name any individual involved in the violation. Such nonresponse makes the CRN invalid as a matter of law. Demase v. State Farm Insurance Company, 2021 WL 3617403 (Fla.Cir.Ct.) (Trial Order). Section 624.155(3)(b)(3) requires that a CRN state with specificity the name of any individual involved in the violation. The CRN is therefore invalid as a matter of law. See Julien v. United Property & Casualty Insurance Company, 311 So.3d at 875 (Fla 4th DCA 2021) and Demase, 2021 WL 3617403. We trust that this response addresses the allegations raised by the Insureds in the Civil Remedy Notices of Insurer Violations. Should the Department determine it requires any additional information, the undersigned remains available to discuss any questions or concerns with respect to this Response. Sincerely, Aaron Behar, Esq. Joshua Gluck, Esq. BeharBehar
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