Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     810204
Filing Accepted:  3/7/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
LLOYD   First Name   TASHA & MATTHEW
Street Address * 2502 MEXICAN SUN DR
City, State Zip * TAMPA, FL 33559
Email Address * TCARREGA@GLOBALPAYMENTTECHNOLOGIES.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   LLOYD   First Name   TASHA & MATTHEW
Policy # * 744169 Claim #* 013530
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* BOGGS First Name * AMY Initial
Street Address* 4554 CENTRAL AVE, SUITE L
City, State Zip* ST, PETERSBURG , FLORIDA 33711
Email Address * BOGGS-PLEADINGS@BOGGSLAWGROUP.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   VYRD INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 17153
 
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
Other : Undervalued Claim
Other : Failure to Settle
* 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.
* 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 I – PROPERTY COVERAGES COVERAGE A – Dwelling We cover: 1. The dwelling on the “residence premises” shown in the Declarations, including structures attached to the dwelling
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

The Insureds own real property located at: 2502 Mexican Sun Dr, Tampa, FL, 33559 (the “Property”). On or about October 9, 2024, the Property suffered extensive damage due to Hurricane Milton. The storm damaged both the interior and exterior of the Property. The Property was insured through VYRD Insurance Company (“VYRD”) under Policy No. 744169 (the “Policy”) at the time of the loss. The Insureds had ample coverage under the Policy to cover the loss. The Insureds made a claim with VYRD, who assigned claim No. 013530 and investigated the loss. VYRD accepted coverage for the loss but adjusted the loss to be less than the Policy’s deductible. To date, VYRD has tendered no benefits owed under the Policy for the Insureds’ covered loss. The Insureds retained licensed Public Adjuster Zach Kirby, of Altieri Insurance Consultants, to investigate the loss and provide an estimate of the damages the Property sustained. Mr. Kirby estimated the total cost to restore the Property back to its pre-loss condition at $442,697.37 ACV/ $477,688.99 RCV for the dwelling. VYRD tendered zero additional benefits after receiving the Altieri damage estimate. After accounting for the Policy’s deductible, the total outstanding amount owed to the Insureds at this time is $425,681.37 ACV. The disparity between the Insureds’ $425,681.37 in damages and VYRD’s adjusting of the Insureds claim to be less than the Policy’s deductible constitutes a bad faith effort by VYRD to avoid payment for the Insureds’ covered loss. VYRD hopes that the Insureds will settle their claim for far less than the full benefits they are owed under the Policy. In sum, VYRD has wrongfully denied the Insureds’ claim and has refused to tender benefits that the Insureds are due for this covered loss under the Policy. In failing to make full payment of benefits due, VYRD has also failed to investigate and settle the claim in good faith, partially denied the claim without conducting a proper investigation, and misrepresented pertinent facts pertaining to the Policy’s coverage. On information and belief, VYRD has engaged in the following behaviors with such frequency that the conduct is a pattern and practice of VYRD: delay, improper adjustment of claims, under-valuation of claims, failure to communicate with insureds, and wrongful denial of claims. VYRD and the Insureds are parties to a valid and binding contract of insurance. This contract of insurance requires VYRD to provide benefits to the Insureds in the case of a covered loss to the Property. The Insureds suffered a covered loss under the Policy and have otherwise suffered damage that is not excluded under the Policy. All conditions precedent to obtaining coverage for the loss have been complied with, met, or waived. VYRD has simply failed and refused to pay any benefits due for the covered loss the Property sustained. The Insureds have been damaged by VYRD’s breach of contract. This notice is given to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by Florida Statute, including all bad faith/extra-contractual and punitive damages, should VYRD fail to cure the violations set forth in this notice within the given cure period. To cure the defects outlined in this civil remedy notice VYRD must: (1) Provide full payment of benefits for the Insured’s claim; and (2) Tender interest for benefits due at the statutory rate dating back to reporting of the loss per Fla. Stat. §627.70131.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
Boggs-pleadings@amyboggslaw.com 07-03-2025 “This Civil Remedy Notice is hereby withdrawn. The parties in this matter have reached a settlement agreement.”
ssuarez@kelleykronenberg.com 04-22-2025 April 22, 2025 Via Electronic Submission Florida Department of Insurance Civil Remedy Section 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399 Complainant: Tasha and Matthew Lloyd Named Carrier: VYRD Insurance Company Property: 2502 Mexican Sun Dr., Lutz, FL 33559 Claim No.: 013530 Policy No.: 744169 CRN Filing No.: 810204 CRN Filing Date: 3/7/25 To Whom This May Concern: Please accept this correspondence as VYRD Insurance Company’s (“VYRD”) response to the Civil Remedy Notice (“CRN”) number 810204, filed by the complainants, Tasha and Matthew Lloyd (“Complainants”) dated March 7, 2025. From the outset, VYRD denies that any of its actions taken regarding the Insureds’ claim have resulted in a violation of Florida’s bad faith laws, including 624.155 and 626.9541, as alleged in the CRN. Rather, VYRD has acted, at all times, in good faith in its investigation and handling of this claim and with regard to the best interest of its Insureds. While VYRD welcomes the opportunity to respond to this CRN and specifically denies each and every allegation contained in the CRN referenced above, VYRD requests the CRN be rejected as it fails to comply with several of the requirements of the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation document provisions as set forth in Florida Statute § 624.155, as well as pursuant to Florida case law. Setting forth the factual background, the subject claim for alleged Hurricane Milton damage was initially reported to VYRD on November 1, 2024, for an alleged date of loss of October 9, 2024. On December 4, 2024, two inspections of the Property performed: one by an independent field adjuster and one by a professional engineer. On December 6, 2024, the engineer performed an additional inspection to investigate the condition of the roof, as it was tarped during the initial inspection. Based on the results of these inspections, as well as the overall investigation into the claim, VYRD determined that the amount of covered damage sustained to the Property was $2,485.36, which fell below the Policy’s $17,016.00 deductible. Additionally, the inspections revealed damage to the Property which was specifically excluded under the terms of the Policy, having been caused by, inter alia, age-related wear and tear, installation and maintenance deficiencies, deterioration, manufacturing deficiencies, manual manipulation, mechanical damage, deferred maintenance, thermal expansion and construction, and lack of storm-created openings. Accordingly, on January 22, 2025, a coverage letter was issued by VYRD which set forth the above-mentioned findings and coverage decision in great detail. The coverage determination rendered by VRYD was based on an extensive, complete and thorough evaluation of the Claim, and was in accordance with the Policy’s clear and unambiguous terms and conditions. VYRD’s investigation into the claim was extensive and performed with care and due diligence. The facts, as set forth above, demonstrate quite clearly that VYRD acted in good faith. VYRD acted fairly and honestly, acknowledged and acted promptly upon receipt of the claim, determined coverage for the claim pursuant to the terms of the policy, and took reasonable steps to investigate the claim and inspect the Property. Accordingly, the CRN does not provide the contemplated and mandated notice of bad faith that is required as a condition precedent to any civil claim for bad faith pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 624.155. The CRN fails at its inception. Pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 624.155, a complainant is required to “indicate all statutory provisions alleged to have been violated.” The subject CRN, however, includes 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 CRN. Because the CRN fails to identify the specific facts applicable to the listed statutes that were allegedly violated with respect to the subject claim, VYRD is unable to properly respond and said CRN should be rejected and returned. As such, it is VYRD’s position that the CRN is statutorily deficient in that it cites various statutory violations and does not provide the requisite specificity as to how they were violated. Furthermore, contrary to the requirement to “describe the facts and circumstances giving rise to the insurer’s violation as you understand them at this time,” the purpose of which is “to enable the insurer to investigate and resolve the claim,” the CRN itself provides unsupported, vague, ambiguous, and incorrect allegations with no basis in fact or circumstances. The CRN fails to apprise VYRD of any actions that rise to the level of a statutory violation other than boilerplate allegations. The CRN is purposefully drafted in a manner which does not allow VYRD proper notice of the allegations or any meaningful opportunity to respond and/or evaluate the claims being asserted. Based upon the foregoing, the CRN is insufficient on its face and should be rejected. Talat Enterprises Inc. vs. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 2000); Lane v. Westfield Ins. Company, 862 So.2d 744 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Aside from the fact that the CRN is insufficient on its face, the tenor and inferences of the allegations are wholly without merit and VYRD denies each and every one. An insurer possesses a non-delegable duty to completely and accurately investigate a claim in order to evaluate the claim on behalf of the policyholder. American Fidelity & Cas. Co. vs. Greyhound Corp., 258 F. 2d 709, 710-11 (5th Cir. 1958). However, the insurer’s statutory obligation to settle claims in good faith only requires the insurer to timely evaluate and pay benefits under the insurance policy if such payments are warranted. Id. The insurer also has a right and obligation to issue payments only as contemplated by the terms, conditions, exclusions, limitations, and endorsements contained within the subject Policy of insurance. Notwithstanding the above-mentioned deficiencies/discrepancies, the following are VYRD’s responses to each of the alleged violations noticed in the CRN: VYRD conducted a complete, thorough, and timely investigation of the alleged loss relying on inspection, Policy terms, and statutory requirements to inform VYRD’s coverage determination, which was made in accordance with, and as contemplated by, the terms and conditions of the subject Policy. VYRD acted fairly and honestly toward the Insured in its handling of the claim. Thus, there is no violation of § 624.155(1)(b)(1). VYRD conducted a complete, thorough, and timely investigation of the alleged loss and issued a coverage determination based on such findings, as well as upon the terms and conditions of the subject policy. VYRD was under no obligation to settle the claim as there was no coverage under the terms, conditions, limitations, exclusions, and endorsements of the subject Policy and/or coverage fell below deductible. Thus, there is no violation of §624.155(1)(b)(3). VYRD has not failed to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims and, rather, has thoroughly and timely investigated the claim. VYRD promptly conducted an inspection and issued a coverage determination based its investigation of the claim, as well as the terms, conditions, limitations, and endorsements which make up the policy. Thus, there is no violation of § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a). VYRD has not misrepresented pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. Rather, VYRD has adequately apprised of policy provisions and how they apply to the subject insurance claim. Thus, there is no violation of § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b). VYRD has not failed to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to the claim. All communications have been timely acknowledged and responded to. Thus, there is no violation of § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c). VYRD has not denied the claim without conducting a reasonable investigation. Rather, VYRD has conducted an extensive investigation into the claim and timely issued a coverage determination based on its overall evaluation and inspection. Thus, there is no violation of § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d). In closing, VYRD’s actions in handling the subject insurance claim were prompt, thorough, conducted in accordance with the Policy and Florida law and—most importantly—in good faith. Furthermore, VYRD complied with all obligations under the Policy and the Florida Statutes, promptly investigated the claim, and promptly issued a coverage determination. Thus, VYRD denies each and every allegation contained in the CRN and respectfully requests that the CRN is rejected due to its failure to comply with Florida Statute §624.155 and Florida case law. We trust that this response adequately addresses the allegations of violation alleged in the CRN. In addition, you will find a response submitted to the Florida Department of Financial Services on its website. Should you wish to discuss further, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Andrew Labbe Andrew Labbe, Esq. cc: Amy Boggs, Esq. Counsel for Complainants Boggs-pleadings@boggslawgroup.com
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