Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     810764
Filing Accepted:  3/12/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
JONES   First Name   HARRY
Street Address * 6880 TINKERBELL LANE
City, State Zip * JACKSONVILLE, FL 32210
Email Address * AZTHARRY03@GMAIL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   JONES   First Name   HARRY
Policy # * 1501-2104-3854 Claim #* FL24-0114802-H424
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* NIPPS First Name * ROBERT Initial L
Street Address* 203 FORT WADE RD. SUITE 260
City, State Zip* PONTE VEDRA , FL 32081
Email Address * RNIPPS@WOOLSEYMORCOM.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10861
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* CLAIM ADJUSTER
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
Unfair Trade Practice
Other : Wrongful claim denial
Other : Unfair claim settlement practices
Other : Unreasonable investigation
Other : Failure to act on claim
Other : Failure to conduct a reasonable investigation based on available information
Other : Failure to maintain proper complaint handling procedures
Other : Misrepresenting the insurance policy provisions to the insured
Other : Misrepresenting Florida statutory provisions to the insured
Other : Misrepresenting facts to the insured
Other : Failure to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims
Other : Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information
Other : Failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and, as to partial coverage, the dolla
Other : Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of the basis in the i
Other : Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of
Other : Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such informat
Other : Failing to pay undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed under first-party property insura
* 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)(3)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e) Failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and, as to partial coverage, the dollar amount or extent of coverage, or failing to provide a written statement that the claim is being investigated, upon the written request of the insured within 30 days after proof-of-loss statements have been completed.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f) Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of the basis in the insurance policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g) Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h) Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary.
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.

624.155(1)(a)(1) – violating 626.9541(1)(i) 626.9541(1)(a)(1) -- misrepresenting the terms of an insurance policy. 626.9541(1)(i) -- unfair claim settlement practices. SECTION I – PERILS INSURED AGAINST A. Coverage A – Dwelling And Coverage B – Other Structures 1. We insure against direct physical loss to property described in Coverages A and B. **** [A]ny ensuing loss to property described in Coverages A and B not precluded by any other provision in this policy is covered. **** F. Additional Coverages 1. Debris Removal a. We will pay your reasonable expense for the removal of: (1) Debris of covered property if a Peril Insured Against that applies to the damaged property causes the loss; or (2) Ash, dust or particles from a volcanic eruption that has caused direct loss to a building or property contained in a building. This expense is included in the limit of liability that applies to the damaged property. If the amount to be paid for the actual damage to the property plus the debris removal expense is more than the limit of liability for the damaged property, an additional 5% of that limit is available for such expense **** 11. Ordinance Or Law a. You may use up to 25% of the limit of liability that applies to Coverage A for the increased costs you incur due to the enforcement of any ordinance or law which requires or regulates: (1) The construction, demolition, remodeling, renovation or repair of that part of a covered building or other structure damaged by a Peril Insured Against; (2) The demolition and reconstruction of the undamaged part of a covered building or other structure, when that building or other structure must be totally demolished because of damage by a Peril Insured Against to another part of that covered building or other structure; or (3) The remodeling, removal or replacement of the portion of the undamaged part of a covered building or other structure necessary to complete the remodeling, repair or replacement of that part of the covered building or other structure damaged by a Peril Insured Against. b. You may use all or part of this ordinance or law coverage to pay for the increased costs you incur to remove debris resulting from the construction, demolition, remodeling, renovation, repair or replacement of property as stated in a. above. **** Also refer to: Coverage A provision, coverage B provision, coverage C provision, coverage D provision, all additional coverages provisions, all coverages provided by endorsement or rider, the declarations page, loss payment or settlement provision, duties in event of loss policy provision, all terms and conditions of section I of the insurance policy, the insurance policy definitions section, the insurance policy‘s exclusion of coverage provisions, all insurance policy provisions that provide coverage to the insured property, and all policy provisions.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“UPCIC”) has committed the following in handling the insured’s claim: 1) failure to pay benefits owed; 2) failure to act in due diligence and good faith to resolve claims; 3) placing the financial interest of the insurer before that of the policy holder and claimant; 4) failure to properly train, evaluate, and manage adjusters retained to represent the policies and procedures of UPCIC; 5) looking for ways to delay benefit payments and otherwise “low ball” or “stone wall” claims; 6) looking for ways to deny the insured’s claim; 7) looking for ways to reduce recovery to the insured; 8) failure to perform a reasonable investigation; 9) misrepresenting Florida statutory provisions to its insured; 10) misrepresenting insurance policy provisions to the insured; 11) UPCIC has failed and refused to acknowledge coverage and promptly pay the benefits due and owed to the insured; 12) the reasons for this may be attributed to improper training, supervision, and/or motivation of outside adjusters and claims supervisors to promptly and fairly adjust and pay full benefits available to the insured. The insurer may have failed to adopt proper standards of investigation and adjustment of losses or is otherwise not implementing those standards because a proper investigation and full and prompt payment for the loss is not occurring. In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. UPCIC has breached this duty by its adjustment of the insureds’ claim of loss. UPCIC has failed to create and implement adequate guidelines for proper investigation to evaluate claims handling and for training and supervision of employees resulting in violations as set forth above. UPCIC has failed and/or refused to thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigate and evaluate the insureds’ insurance claim for damages. Despite the insureds’ timely notification to UPCIC of the insurance claim, UPCIC has failed and refused to acknowledge the covered loss and pay all amounts due and owing to the insured under the policy of insurance. UPCIC has failed to promptly settle the insureds’ insurance claim, when the obligation to settle the claim had become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance, in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage. Despite the insureds’ pleas otherwise, UPCIC has failed and refused to acknowledge its obligation to tender all insurance proceed monies due and owing the insured or assist the insured in mitigation of the damages. In exchange for a premium paid by the insured, UPCIC issued the subject insurance policy which provided coverage for “direct physical loss to property described in Coverages A and B.” As such, the subject all-risk Policy contains coverage for all direct physical losses to the insured property unless the loss is specifically and unambiguously excluded from coverage by the Policy. On or about May 27, 2024, the insured property suffered a property damage loss, and the insured immediately submitted a claim to UPCIC for property damage, i.e., property damage to exterior and interior of the insured residence. Hence, the Insureds suffered a substantial loss regarding the real property and continue to suffer such loss. Having suffered such substantial damage, the insured promptly notified UPCIC of the loss in an effort to mitigate the current damage and prevent the exacerbation of any additional losses. The desired result did not follow. UPCIC, since being presented the Insured’s claim, has misrepresented policy provisions to avoid paying the insured what they are owed under the policy. Ultimately, UPCIC has failed and refused to properly settle the Insured’s claim in good faith. The Insured has requested that UPCIC conduct an investigation, admit coverage, and pay damages; UPCIC has failed and refused to do so. In short, UPCIC has failed to handle its Insured’s claim in good faith in violation of Fla. Stat. 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3), and 626.9541(1)(i). Based upon UPCIC’s investigation and property inspection, which confirmed property damages, UPCIC’s third-party adjuster, Alder Adjusting, nevertheless sent correspondence to the Insured dated August 6, 2024, confirming partial coverage for the claim, and failing and refusing to issue full payment to the Insured. In regard to insurance contracts, a specific refusal to pay a claim is the breach which triggers the cause of action. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d 885, 892 (Fla. 2003); Donovan v. AIIC Fire and Cas. Co., 574 So. 2d 285, 286 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1991) (finding that a breach of contract takes place at the moment the insurance company refuses to pay a claim). Therefore, UPCIC breached the Policy. Moreover, UPCIC’s argued exclusions and/or limitations to coverage are devoid of anti-concurrent causation language. Thus, “coverage may exist where an insured risk constitutes a concurrent cause of the loss even when it is not the prime or efficient cause.” Sebo v. Am. Home Assurance Co., Inc., 208 So. 3d 694, 699 (Fla. 2016). In addition, under the Policy, any ensuing loss to property not excluded or excepted in this policy is covered. Hence, there are a myriad of coverages under the Policy that would provide coverage for the loss. Nevertheless, UPCIC failed and refused to acknowledge the full extent of covered loss and pay all amounts due and owing for the loss. Therefore, UPCIC breached the Policy. Questioning the propriety of UPCIC’s continued coverage determination, and given the extensive nature of the physical damage, the insured a consulting licensed contractor, Tom Gannon, with LSC Construction Consultants, LLC (“LSC”), to perform an investigation and damage evaluation in accordance with industry standards and Florida law. Based on his investigation, Mr. Gannon concluded that property damage on or about May 28, 2024, caused damage to the exterior and interior of the insured property. Moreover, Mr. Gannon determined that at least $77,528.13 worth of repairs would be required to return the property to its pre-loss condition as a result of the property damage loss. Nevertheless, UPCIC failed and refused to acknowledge the covered loss and pay all amounts due and owing under the Policy. Therefore, UPCIC breached the Policy. As such, UPCIC’s coverage determination is a blatant misrepresentation of the available coverages under the Policy in direct violation of Fla. Stats. 626.9541(1)(a)(1), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(a)(1), and 626.9541(1)(i)(2) and is nothing more than a mere pretext to wrongfully delay this claim. As a result, UPCIC has materially misrepresented the coverages under the subject policy to the Insured for the purpose and with the intent of effecting settlement of the Insured’s claim on less favorable terms than those provided in, and contemplated by, the subject policy in direct violation of Fla. Stat. § 626.9541(1)(i)(2). Further, UPCIC is in violation of Florida statutes §§ 626.9541(1)(a)(1), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), and 626.9541(1)(a)(1) by misrepresenting pertinent facts and insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue; and also in violation of Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) by refusing to cover the full loss of the Insured’s claim without conducting a reasonable investigation based upon available information. In summary, the Insured’s loss is clearly covered by the terms of the policy of insurance with UPCIC. However, UPCIC chose to open coverage for the Insured’s loss, but only for a mere fraction of the actual damage sustained by the insured property. To date, UPCIC continues to deny the Insureds full indemnity for the claim. While UPCIC refuses to honor this claim, a jury in Duval County will likely do what UPCIC has refused; exercise the benefit of doubt in favor of the Insureds in finding full coverage for this loss. Indeed, the Insured will undoubtedly meet the burden of proof at trial, under the UPCIC all-risk policy, to show that, while UPCIC provided insurance coverage, damage occurred to the insured property. See Jones v. Federated Nat'l Ins. Co., 235 So. 3d 936, 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). With the data presented within UPCIC’s investigation and Coastal Claim’s investigation, UPCIC’s burden to demonstrate by the greater weight of the evidence that all the physical damage to the insured property was caused solely by excluded perils under the policy and not in combination with a covered peril has not and cannot be met. See Sebo v. Am. Home Assurance Co., Inc., 208 So. 3d 694 (Fla. 2016). Despite clear indicators of covered damage, UPCIC nevertheless refused to provide coverage for the total loss of the Insureds’ claim. As of today, UPCIC has failed and refused to inform the Insured of his rights under the policy of insurance and Florida statutes, has improperly delayed the Insured’s claim, has wrongfully denied the Insured’s claim, and has failed and refused to adequately indemnify the Insureds for the loss and defiantly continues to do so. Indeed, from the time of receiving the claim, UPCIC has purposely and maliciously delayed in adjusting the subject claim in an effort to either avoid paying the claim altogether or, at the very least, avoid paying the full extent of the loss. Notably, under Florida law, “[t]he filing of a lawsuit does not extinguish the insurer’s obligations under the policy to adjust and pay the claim.” Tristar Lodging, Inc. V. Arch Specialty Ins. Co., 434 F. Supp. 2d 1286, 1289 (M.D. Fla. 2006). To date, the Insured has made a good faith effort to comply with all of the requirements under the subject policy of insurance, and it is only fair that UPCIC do the same. Yet, that is not the case. The Insured feels that the insured property is a valuable asset, and, by continuously delaying the proper handling of this claim, UPCIC is putting the insured property at risk. As a responsible property owner, the Insureds purchased insurance to protect the property, paid all of the premiums, and have kept up to date with the responsibilities under the policy. Yet, when the Insured needed to rely on the insurance because of this unforeseen loss, UPCIC turned its back and delayed coverage that the Insured is rightfully owed. Ultimately, UPCIC has failed and refused to properly investigate the loss. The Insureds have requested that UPCIC admit coverage, which it has, but refuses to fully indemnify the Insureds for the loss and pay the amounts necessary to properly repair the Insureds’ property, despite knowing it is required to do so. In short, UPCIC has failed to handle its Insureds’ claim in good faith. In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust; UPCIC has breached this duty by its insufficient adjustment of the Insureds’ claim. UPCIC has failed to create and implement adequate guidelines for proper investigation to evaluate claims handling and for training and supervision of employees resulting in statutory violations set forth above. UPCIC has failed and/or refused to thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigate and evaluate the Insureds’ insurance claim for damages. Florida statute § 624.02 defines insurance as a contract whereby one undertakes to indemnify another or pay or allow a specified amount or a determinable benefit upon determinable contingencies. Inherent is the fact that payment must be made timely and promptly so that the insured may mitigate their damages to put them back into the position they were prior to loss as quickly as possible. UPCIC breached this duty. The actions taken by UPCIC in the handling / adjustment of the Insured’s claim were willful, wanton, and with complete disregard for the rights of its insured and occur with such a frequency as to indicate a general business practice and are in violation of Fla. Stat. 624.155 and 626.9541. UPCIC’s actions amount to but are not limited to the following: 1. Claim delay 2. Wrongful claim denial 3. Unfair trade practice 4. Unfair claim settlement practices 5. Unreasonable investigation 6. Failure to act on claim 7. Failure to conduct a reasonable investigation based on available information 8. Failure to maintain proper complaint handling procedures 9. Misrepresenting the insurance policy provisions to the insured 10. Misrepresenting Florida statutory provisions to the insured 11. Misrepresenting facts to the insured 12. Failure to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims 13. Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim. 17. Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary. 18. Failing to pay undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed under first-party property insurance policies within 90 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 an act of God, prevented by the impossibility of performance, or due to actions by the insured or claimant that constitute fraud, lack of cooperation, or intentional misrepresentation regarding the claim for which benefits are owed. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this civil remedy notice, UPCIC must: (1): Admit full coverage for the insured’s loss; (2): Tender all insurance monies due and owing to the insured for the loss under the subject Policy; A copy of this form submitted to the FDFS has been emailed and/or uploaded and also printed out and mailed to the following parties providing them notice of the filing of this civil remedy notice: Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company 1110 W. Commercial Blvd. Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
jonathan@woolseymorcom.com 05-11-2026 Withdrawn.
sm1130@universalproperty.com 05-01-2025 May 1, 2025 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING Florida Department of Financial Services Bureau of Consumer Assistance Civil Remedy Section 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0322 Re: DFS File No.: 810764 Filing Date: 3/12/2025 Complainant(s): Harry Jones Insured(s): Harry Jones Policy No.: 1501-2104-3854 Claim No.: FL24-0114802-H424 Dear Sir/Madam: Please allow this to serve as Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company’s (“Universal”) formal response to the above-referenced Civil Remedy Notice filed by attorney Robert L Nipps, on behalf of Complainant, Harry Jones. The Notice alleges violations of Sections 624.02, 624.155, and 626.9541, Fla. Stats. Universal denies that it violated these or any statutes, Florida law, or policy provisions regarding the claim adjustment of this matter. With that said, Universal asserts that the Notice fails to comply with the specific notice and information requirements as set forth in Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation document provisions, Section 624.155, Florida Statutes and Florida law. The Notice is deficient as a matter of law as it fails to comply with Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. See 316, Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Ins. Co., 625 F. Supp. 2d 1187 (N.D. Fla. 2008); Rousso v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., 2010 WL 7367059, (S. D. Fla. 2010); Heritage Corp. of South Fla. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, P.A., 580 F. Supp. 2d 1294 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co., 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). Pursuant to Section 624.155(3)(b), Florida Statutes the Notice “shall state with specificity” the following information: 1. The statutory provision, including the specific language, 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...; 5. a statement that the Notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section. Moreover, the Department of Financial Services (“DFS”), created form DFS-10-363, which lays out 15 requirements that the Complainant(s) must respond to with specificity. The Florida Supreme Court holds that Section 624.155, Florida Statutes “must be strictly construed.” Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1283 (Fla. 2000). Strict construction is appropriate as “this statute is in derogation of the common law.” Id. When interpreting a statute in derogation of the common law, “[a] court will presume that such a statute was not intended to alter the common law other than as clearly and plainly specified in the statute.” Time Ins. Co., Inc. v. Burger, 712 So. 2d 389, 393 (Fla. 1998). Such an interpretation would mean that statutory bad faith cases cannot proceed unless the Complainant(s) specifically complied with all statutory requirements. Pin-Pon Corp. v. Landmark American Ins. Co., 500 F. Supp. 3d 1336 (S.D. Fla. 2020); Julien v. United Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 311 So.3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). The Notice fails to meet the requirement of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, on several grounds. First, the Civil Remedy Notice requires the Complainant(s) “pursuant to section 624.155, F.S. please indicate all statutory provisions alleged to have been violated.” The Notice filed by the Complainant in this matter includes almost every statutory provision that could be claimed against an insurance company, without the requisite specificity as to how, if at all, they are relevant or applicable to any facts alleged in the Notice. Because the Notice fails to identify any specific statutes, Universal is unable to properly respond and the Notice does not comply with Fla. Stat. § 624.155. Second, with respect to the requirement to set forth with specificity the “facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation,” the Notice fails to allege any specific conduct on the part of Universal that would violate any policy provision or statute. The Complainant provides thirteen (18) reasons for submitting the Notice. However, the Complainant’s allegations regarding these “Reasons for Notice” have no factual support anywhere in the Notice. The Notice asserts general allegations containing inaccurate and conclusory statements rather than specifying facts to support any alleged statutory violation. For example, the Notice states “UPCIC has failed and refused to inform the Insured [sic] of his [sic] rights under the policy of insurance and Florida statutes, has improperly delayed the Insured’s [sic] claim, has wrongfully denied the Insured’s [sic] claim, and has failed and refused to adequately indemnify the Insureds for the loss and defiantly continues to do so.” The Complainant fails to assert any facts to support these conclusory statements nor any examples of how Universal failed to inform the Insureds of their rights. As an additional example, the Notice states in part: “Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“UPCIC”) has committed the following in handling the insured’s [sic] claim: 1) failure to pay benefits owed; 2) failure to act in due diligence and good faith to resolve claims; 3) placing the financial interest of the insurer before that of the policy holder [sic] and claimant; 4) failure to properly train, evaluate, and manage adjusters retained to represent the policies and procedures of UPCIC; 5) looking for ways to delay benefit payments and otherwise “low ball” or “stone wall” claims; 6) looking for ways to deny the insured’s [sic] claim; 7) looking for ways to reduce recovery to the insured [sic]; 8) failure to perform a reasonable investigation; 9) misrepresenting Florida statutory provisions to its insured [sic]; 10) misrepresenting insurance policy provisions to the insured [sic]; 11) UPCIC has failed and refused to acknowledge coverage and promptly pay the benefits due and owed to the insured [sic]; 12) the reasons for this may be attributed to improper training, supervision, and/or motivation of outside adjusters and claims supervisors to promptly and fairly adjust and pay full benefits available to the insured [sic].” The Complainant’s conclusory statements outlined above are unsupported by facts in the Notice and do not provide the requisite specificity as to how Universal allegedly violated any policy provision or statute. Moreover, the Notice does not set forth any facts regarding any misrepresentations made by Universal and does not identify the person or persons who made such misrepresentations, nor does it identify to whom any misrepresentations were made. The Notice further alleges, “[t]he actions taken by UPCIC in the handling / adjustment of the Insured’s [sic] claim were willful, wanton, and with complete disregard for the rights of its insured [sic] and occur with such a frequency as to indicate a general business practice and are in violation of Fla. Stat. 624.155 and 626.9541.” The Notice does not specify any facts to support this allegation nor provides any specific examples of how Universal violated the Insureds’ rights. Furthermore, the Complainant is required to provide with specificity the facts and circumstances giving rise to the alleged violation strictly related to Complainant’s allegations, not conjecture or speculation of what may be the carrier’s business practices. In addition, the Notice alleges that Universal breached Section 624.02, Florida statutes, but fails to provide facts to specify how this statute was breached. The Notice is replete with inaccuracies, conclusory statements and supposition in lieu of specifying facts to support any of the alleged misconduct or statutory violations. The failure to specify facts to support the conclusory allegations of misconduct hinders Universal’s ability to appropriately investigate the allegations in the Notice. As a result, the Complainant fails to comply with the requirements provided in Section 624.155(3)(b)(2), Florida Statutes. Third, the Notice fails to satisfy the requirement to identify the person or persons representing the insurer most responsible for or knowledgeable of the facts giving rise to the allegations. To comply with the requirements of Sec. 624.155, Fla. Stat., the Complainant(s) must name the individual(s) involved with specificity as it relates to the purported violation(s) to allow Universal to properly investigate the allegations. The Notice lacks the requisite specificity required by Sec. 624.155, Fla. Stat. because the Notice states “CLAIM ADJUSTER” which clearly defeats the requirement in the DFS Form to provide specificity to put the carrier on notice and provide an opportunity to investigate any allegation with a specific individual. The Notice does not have the requisite specificity as to whom the Complainant is asserting has knowledge as to any purported allegation in the Notice. The failure to provide the requisite specificity precludes Universal from taking any corrective action and potentially curing any purported allegation. Specific identification of a person or persons with the most knowledge within Universal is of particular importance because the Complainants allege that Universal “…has materially misrepresented the coverages under the subject policy to the Insured [sic]…” and “…misrepresent[ed] pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue.” The Notice, however, fails to include the requisite specificity as to whom made any misrepresentations or when any of these misrepresentations occurred. Accordingly, the Notice is insufficient as a matter of law. Fourth, the Notice fails to satisfy Section 624.155(3)(b)(4), Florida Statutes, in that it fails to reference specific policy language relevant to any alleged violations. Instead, the Notice improperly cites to Sections 624.155 and 626.9541, Florida Statutes; however, these sections are not policy provisions and moreover, there are no facts specified to place Universal on notice of how it or whom allegedly violated these statutes. Additionally, the Notice broadly cites to numerous sections and provisions of the Policy without identifying how the referenced sections and provisions relate to any alleged violation or how, if at all, the language is relevant to the subject claim identified in the Notice. As such, Universal is left to wonder what policy provisions Complainant believes were allegedly violated or breached and why. The Notice further states “all policy provisions” which in essence cites to the entire Policy. General, vague, and overbroad references to the entire Policy do not satisfy the specificity required by Section 624.155(3)(b)(4), Florida Statutes. As such, the Notice is deficient as a matter of law. See generally Julien v. United Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 311 So.3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). Lastly, the Notice does not provide a proper means whereby Universal can “cure” the alleged defects. A Civil Remedy Notice aims to provide the insurer an opportunity to “cure” the alleged wrongdoing. Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). Section 624.155, Florida Statute, however, does not impose on an insurer the obligation to pay whatever amount its insureds demand. Talat, 753 So. 2d at 1282. On the contrary, the Florida Supreme Court holds that the scope of what can be “cured” in responding to a Civil Remedy Notice, is limited to contractual amounts due to the insureds. See Talat, 753 So. 2d at 1281. Notably, Universal asserts that by the Insureds initiating litigation before filing the Notice and/or the cure period expiring prejudices Universal’s ability to cure any purported allegation in the Notice as there is no actual cure period. In summary, as outlined above, the Complainant failed to respond to each of the fields set forth on the DFS Form with the requisite specificity including, but not limited to, identifying “Harry Jones” as an insured when said individual is not a named Insured under the subject policy and the Notice fails to provide any facts to demonstrate Harry Jones meets the definition of an insured under the policy, the failure to satisfy the requirement to identify the person or persons representing the insurer most responsible for or knowledgeable of the facts giving rise to the allegations, the failure to reference specific policy language relevant to the alleged violation, and the failure to sufficiently allege facts and circumstances giving rise to any violation. Therefore, the Notice is legally deficient and fails to satisfy the condition precedent to filing a bad faith action. Pin-Pon Corp. v. Landmark American Ins. Co., 500 F. Supp. 3d 1336 (S.D. Fla. 2020); Julien v. United Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 311 So.3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). For the aforementioned reasons, the Notice is deficient as a matter of law. Nonetheless, and without waiving the above-referenced deficiencies, the following shall provide you with Universal’s response to the Notice. On June 29, 2024, Universal received notice from the Insured, Alicia Harris-Gayle, that the insured location was damaged on May 10, 2024. The named Insureds under the policy at issue in the Notice are Alicia Harris-Gayle and Kerry Gayle. In the subject policy under form HO3 15 04 23, it states in part “[i]n this policy, “you” and “your” refer to the “named insured” shown in the Declarations and the spouse if a resident of the same household.” The Complainant was not a named insured under the subject policy during the applicable policy period and the Notice does provide any information how the Complainant has standing to bring forth a claim against Universal. Based upon the aforementioned, Universal asserts that it cannot discuss any specific facts of the referenced claim. On February 21, 2025, the Insureds, Alicia Harris-Gayle and Kerry Gayle initiated litigation against Universal in Circuit Court in and for Duval County, under Case No. 16-2025-CC-003549-AXXX-MA. Thus, at this time, the parties will litigate their disputes to determine what, if any, additional available coverage exists under the terms of the Policy. Universal did not breach any duty to its Insureds. An insurer has no obligation to pay whatever amount its insureds demand. While an insurance company is required to settle claims that should be settled, it is not required to settle claims that are legitimately contested. Accordingly, the alleged statutory violations and factual allegations of wrongdoing set forth in the Notice lack factual support and are without merit. Therefore, the Notice is legally deficient and fails to satisfy the condition precedent to filing a bad faith action. Universal complied with all policy provisions and applicable Florida Statutes and law regarding the adjustment of this claim. We trust that the foregoing is sufficient to advise you of Universal’s position regarding this matter and fully responds to the Notice filed by the Complainant. Sincerely, /s/ Stephen Methe Stephen Methe
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