Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     810874
Filing Accepted:  3/12/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
KEMP   First Name   LEROY AND CHEYSHAN
Street Address * 8216 GALAXIE DR
City, State Zip * JACKSONVILLE, FL 32244
Email Address * YIA17@YOURINSURANCEATTORNEY.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   KEMP   First Name   LEROY AND CHEYSHAN
Policy # * 1504-2000-5776 Claim #* FL21-0136971
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* MESSINA First Name * MATTHEW Initial S
Street Address* 2300 MAITLAND CENTER PKWY, SUITE 122
City, State Zip* MAITLAND , FLORIDA 32751
Email Address * MMESSINA@YOURINSURANCEATTORNEY.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):* CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE OF UNIVERSAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, STEPHEN J. DONAGHY, SCOTT BARRETT, VANESSA COBAS
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
Unfair Trade Practice
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
* 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)(2) Making claims payments to insureds or beneficiaries not accompanied by a statement setting forth the coverage under which payments are being made.
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.
* 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 A. Coverage A – Dwelling 1. We cover: a. The dwelling on the "residence premises" shown in the Declarations, including structures attached to the dwelling; and b. Materials and supplies located on or next to the "residence premises" used to construct, alter or repair the dwelling or other structures on the "residence premises". 2. We do not cover land, including land on which the dwelling is located. 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. F. Additional Coverages 2. Reasonable Emergency Measures a. We will pay up to the greater of $3,000 or 1% of your Coverage A limit of liability for the reasonable costs incurred by you for necessary measures taken solely to protect covered property from further damage, when the damage or loss is caused by a Peril Insured Against. b. We will not pay more than the amount in a. above, unless we provide you approval within 48 hours of your request to us to exceed the limit in a. above. In such circumstance, we will pay only up to the additional amount for the measures we authorize. If we fail to respond to you within 48 hours of your request to us and the damage or loss is caused by a Peril Insured Against, you may exceed the amount in a. above only up to the cost incurred by you for the reasonable emergency measures necessary to protect the covered property from further damage. c. If, however, form UPCIC 201 15 is part of your policy and a covered loss occurs during a “hurricane occurrence”, the amount we pay under this additional coverage is not limited to the amount in a. above. d. A reasonable measure under this Additional Coverage may include a permanent repair when necessary to protect the covered property from further damage or to prevent unwanted entry to the property. To the degree reasonably possible, the damaged property must be retained for us to inspect. e. This coverage does not: (1) Increase the limit of liability that applies to the covered property; or (2) Relieve you of your duties, in case of a loss to covered property, as set forth in Section I – Condition C. (3) Pay for property not covered, or for repairs resulting from a peril not covered, or for loss excluded from this policy. F. Additional Coverages 5. Property Removed We insure covered property against direct loss from any cause while being removed from a premises endangered by a Peril Insured Against and for no more than 30 days while removed. This coverage does not change the limit of liability that applies to the property being removed. F. Additional Coverages 7. Loss Assessment a. We will pay up to $1,000 for your share of loss assessment charged during the policy period against you, as owner or tenant of the "residence premises", by a corporation or association of property owners. The assessment must be made as a result of direct loss to property, owned by all members collectively, of the type that would be covered by this policy if owned by you, caused by a Peril Insured Against under Coverage A, other than: (1) Earthquake; or (2) Land shock waves or tremors before, during or after a volcanic eruption. The limit of $1,000 is the most we will pay with respect to any one loss, regardless of the number of assessments. We will only apply one deductible, per unit, to the total amount of any one loss to the property described above, regardless of the number of assessments. b. We do not cover assessments charged against you or a corporation or association of property owners by any governmental body. c. Paragraph Q. Policy Period under Section I – Conditions does not apply to this coverage. This coverage is additional insurance F. Additional Coverages 9. 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. c. We do not cover: (1) The loss in value to any covered building or other structure due to the requirements of any ordinance or law; or (2) The costs to comply with any ordinance or law which requires any "insured" or others to test for, monitor, clean up, remove, contain, treat, detoxify or neutralize, or in any way respond to, or assess the effects of, pollutants in or on any covered building or other structure. Pollutants means any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant, including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and waste. Waste includes materials to be recycled, reconditioned or reclaimed. This coverage is additional insurance. F. Additional Coverages 11. “Fungi”, Wet Or Dry Rot, Or Bacteria a. Subject to c. Each Covered Loss and d. Policy aggregate below, we will pay for: (1) The total of all loss payable under Section I – Property Coverages caused by “fungi”, wet or dry rot, or bacteria; (2) The cost to remove “fungi”, wet or dry rot, or bacteria from property covered under Section I – Property Coverages; (3) The cost to tear out and replace any part of the building or other covered property as needed to gain access to the “fungi”, wet or dry rot, or bacteria; and (4) The cost of testing of air or property to confirm the absence, presence, or level of “fungi”, wet or dry rot, or bacteria whether performed prior to, during or after removal, repair, restoration or replacement. The cost of such testing will be provided only to the extent that there is a reason to believe that there is the presence of “fungi”, wet or dry rot, or bacteria. b. The coverage described in 11.a. only applies when such loss or costs are a result of a Peril Insured Against that occurs during the policy period and only if all reasonable means were used to save and preserve the property from further damage at and after the time the Peril Insured Against occurred. c. Each Covered Loss: $10,000 is the most we will pay for the total of all loss or costs payable under this Additional Coverage resulting from any one covered loss. d. Policy Aggregate $20,000 is the most we will pay for the total of all loss or costs payable under this Additional Coverage for all covered losses, regardless of the: (1) Number of locations insured; or (2) Number of claims made. e. If there is covered loss or damage to covered property not caused, in whole or in part, by "fungi", wet or dry rot, or bacteria, loss payment will not be limited by the terms of this Additional Coverage, except to the extent that "fungi", wet or dry rot, or bacteria cause an increase in the loss. Any such increase in the loss will be subject to the terms of this Additional Coverage. This coverage does not increase the limit of liability applying to the damaged covered property. SECTION I – PERILS INSURED AGAINST We insure for direct physical loss to the property described in Coverages A, B and C caused by any of the following perils unless the loss is excluded in Section I – Exclusions. However, loss does not include and we will not pay for “diminution in value”. 2. Windstorm Or Hail This peril includes loss to watercraft of all types and their trailers, furnishings, equipment, and outboard engines or motors, only while inside a fully enclosed building. This peril does not include loss to the inside of a building or the property contained in a building caused by rain, snow, sleet, sand or dust unless the direct force of wind or hail damages the building causing an opening in a roof or wall and the rain, snow, sleet, sand or dust enters through this opening. SECTION I – CONDITIONS J. Loss Payment We will adjust all losses with you. We will pay you unless some other person is named in the policy or is legally entitled to receive payment. Loss will be payable upon the earliest of the following: 1. 20 days after we receive your proof of loss and reach written agreement with you; or 2. 60 days after we receive your proof of loss and: a. There is an entry of a final judgment; or b. There is a filing of an appraisal award or a mediation settlement with us. 3. Under Florida Statutes we are required to pay or deny an initial, reopened, or supplemental property insurance claim or portion of a claim, within 90 days of notice of such claim unless there are reasonable circumstances which prevent us from so doing. Our failure to comply with this paragraph shall not form the sole basis for an action against us for breach of contract under this policy or for benefits under this policy.
 
* 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’, Leroy Kemp and Cheyshan Kemp, home was damaged by a windstorm (the “Loss”) on August 22, 2021. The claim was initially reported by the Insureds on or about October 18, 2021. Universal’s Field Adjuster Matt Stancil inspected the Property on October 26, 2021. After the inspection, Heritage delayed providing the insured with a coverage decision. Universal took more than 90 days from receipt of the claim to issue a coverage determination. A claim must be paid or denied within 90 days after receipt of the claim and Universal failed to comply with this provision of the Florida Statutes 627.6131. Universal issued its coverage determination on October 20, 2023. The Insured contends that there is absolutely no reason to justify the delay in the adjustment of the loss. The coverage determination states that Universal “must deny must deny coverage concerning the water damage to the interior of the dwelling portion of the claim. The wind damage to the roof applicable to the above referenced loss, is covered. However, the estimated cost of repair for the direct physical loss to property for the above-referenced claim does not exceed your applicable policy deductible of $2,500.00. Therefore, the Policy does not extend allowance for the claim. A copy of the estimate that forms the basis of the covered damage is enclosed for your review.” The copy of the estimate that formed the basis of the coverage determination was prepared by Barrett Claims Management, Inc., an adjusting firm that Universal hired for utilization of an independent adjuster to inspect the property for damages related to the Loss. The estimate that Universal provided to the Insureds on October 20, 2023, totaled $683.62 and contained one line item labeled “Roofing Repair -Minimum Charge – Labor and Material.” Matt Stancil is the Independent Adjuster that inspected the Loss on behalf of Universal and Barrett Claims Management, Inc. Mr. Stancil inspected the property on October 26, 2021, and also submitted his findings to Barrett Claims Management, Inc., on October 26, 2021. Matt Stancil prepared an estimate for damage he observed to the property during his inspection and submitted the same to Barrett Claims Management on October 26, 2021. However, the estimate that Mr. Stancil prepared was never produced to the Insureds. Instead, the estimate was altered and submitted to the Insureds. The altered estimate was then utilized by Universal to claim that the damages from the Loss did not exceed the policy’s $2,500 deductible, therefore resulting in a net payment to the Insureds of $0 for the Loss. There is a blatant delay in providing a coverage determination as, per Universal’s own coverage determination letter, it relied upon the estimate of damages prepared by Barrett Claims Management, Inc., in making its determination, and the same was submitted to Universal on or about October 26, 2021, nearly two years prior to the coverage determination. Further, Universal clearly and materially misrepresented facts of its investigation to the Insureds as it provided a substantively altered estimate of damages to the Insureds from the estimate that Matt Stancil was retained to prepare for Universal. The altered estimate was then used to underpay the Insureds for the Loss. Thereafter, the Insureds retained Your Insurance Attorney PLLC ( the “Law Firm”) to further assist in the adjustment of the Loss due to the unsatisfactory settlement offers, improper investigative standards, and unreasonable delays on behalf of Universal. The Law Firm submitted a Letter of Representation to Universal on March 6, 2023. The Policy of Insurance issued by Universal that insured the Loss required the Insureds to take action to mitigate damages. The insureds complied with their post-loss obligations by hiring Truview Mold, LLC to perform a mold assessment of the property in relation to the Loss. Truview Mold, LLC found mold growth on the ceilings of two bedrooms, the hallway, kitchen pantry, and garage ceiling – all locations where the property sustained roof leaks from the Loss. On April 26, 2023, the Law Firm provided the Mold Assessment documentation and an invoice for the mold assessment to Universal. Universal denied to pay for the mold assessment invoice. Additionally, the insureds submitted a Sworn Proof of Loss to Universal through the Law Firm on August 1, 2023, affirming that the whole loss and damage at the time amounted to $97,868.10, based on an estimate of damages prepared by Leading Public Adjusters on behalf of the insureds. To date, Universal has failed to issue payment for the Loss. It is clear that Universal has not attempted in good faith to settle the Loss when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward the insureds and with due regard for their interests. To cure Universal’s bad faith claims handling of this particular claim, Universal can immediately tender to the insured’s payment under Coverage A of $97,868.10, “new money”, and $50,000.00 in attorney’s fees and costs. Total Damages to resolve this entire CRN, conditioned on a release, is $147,868.10 exclusive of any pending invoices from TruView Mold, LLC.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
jr0405@universalproperty.com 04-30-2025 April 30, 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.: 810874 Filing Date: 3/12/2025 Complainant(s): Leroy and Cheyshan Kemp Insured(s): Leroy and Cheyshan Kemp Policy No.: 1504-2000-5776 Claim No.: FL21-0136971 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 (“Notice”) filed by attorney, Matthew Messina, on behalf of Complainants, Leroy and Cheyshan Kemp (also referenced as “Insureds”). The Notice alleges violations of Sections 624.155, 626.9541, and 627.6131, Florida Statutes. Of note, despite being cited by Complainants, Fla. Stat. 627.6131 pertains to health insurance policies, and thus is not applicable to this matter. Universal specifically denies each allegation contained in the Notice. Additionally, Universal denies that it violated these or any statutes, Florida law, or policy provisions regarding the claim adjudication 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) has 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 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. In order to comply with the requirements of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, the Complainants 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 as required by Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. Here, the Notice states “CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE OF UNIVERSAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, STEPHEN J. DONAGHY, SCOTT BARRETT, VANESSA COBAS.” The Notice fails to include sufficient specificity as to how the named individuals have knowledge of the facts giving rise to any purported allegation(s) and/or what, if anything, they did or failed to do as it relates to the claim at issue. Therefore, the Notice does not have the requisite specificity as to what, if anything, these individuals have knowledge of and/or how the individuals relate to any allegation in the Notice. Specific identification of a person or persons with the most knowledge within Universal is of particular importance because the Complainants allege that Universal made “[a] material misrepresentation … to an insured or any other person having an interest in the proceeds payable under such contract or policy” and “[m]isrepresent[ed] pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions” in the Notice. 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. Second, the Civil Remedy Notice requires the Complainant(s) “pursuant to section 624.155, Florida Statutes, please indicate all statutory provisions alleged to have been violated.” The Notice filed by the Complainants in this matter includes almost every statutory provision that could be claimed against an insurance company. The Notice, however, fails to specify any facts to support when or how or by whom any of these statutes were violated. Because the Notice fails to provide the requisite specificity, it does not comply with Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. The Notice fails to provide Universal with the necessary notice of what needs to be corrected, if anything at all. Third, the Notice fails to satisfy Section 624.155(3)(b)(4), Florida Statutes, in that it fails to reference any specific policy language relevant to any alleged violation. Instead, the Notice overbroadly references a number of policy provisions and fails to specify any facts regarding how those provisions were violated. It is therefore unclear what, if any, policy language pertains to any allegation. The broad references to provisions in the Policy provide no guidance or explanation, such that Universal is left to wonder what policy provisions the Complainants believe were allegedly violated or breached and why. General, vague, and overbroad references to policy provisions does 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). Fourth, 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 Complainants provide three (3) reasons for submitting the Notice, “Claim Delay,” “Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer,” and “Unfair Trade Practice.” However, the Complainants’ allegations regarding these “Reasons for Notice” have no factual support anywhere in the Notice. The Notice further fails to provide any facts to support the alleged statutory violations. The Notice asserts general allegations consisting largely upon inaccuracies, conclusory statements, and conjecture rather than specific allegations of facts regarding any alleged misconduct or statutory violations. For example, the Notice asserts, “[i]t is clear that Universal has not attempted in good faith to settle the Loss when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward the insureds and with due regard for their interests.” The Complainants fail to allege any specific facts in support of this statement. Furthermore, the Notice generally alleges that Universal violated Sections 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) by “[m]isrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to the coverages at issue” and 626.9541(1)(i)(2), Florida Statutes, by allegedly making “a material misrepresentation … to an insured or any other person having an interest in the proceeds payable under such contract or policy.” However, the Notice does not set forth any actual 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. It is evident that the statement of facts falls short of the specificity required by Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. As a result, the Complainants fail to comply with the requirements provided in Section 624.155(3)(b)(2), Florida Statutes. Lastly, the Notice does not provide a proper means whereby Universal can “cure” the alleged defects, without paying additional benefits which are not due and owing to the Insured. The purpose of a Civil Remedy Notice is 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 Statutes, however, does not impose on an insurer the obligation to pay whatever amount its insured demands. Talat, 753 So. 2d at 1282. To 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 insured. See Talat, 753 So. 2d at 1281. The Notice demands among other things, that to cure the alleged defects, Universal must “immediately tender…$50,000.00 in attorney’s fees and costs.” Thus, the Notice is deficient as it does not provide Universal an opportunity to “cure” the alleged violations without paying extra-contractual damages. Universal is only obligated to pay contractual amounts owed to cure a civil remedy. See Id. at 1278. Notably, Universal asserts that by the Insureds initiating litigation before serving the Notice, prejudiced Universal’s ability to cure any purported allegation in the Notice as there is no actual cure period wherein Universal could cure without paying extra-contractual damages. In summation, the Complainant failed to respond to each of the fields set forth on the DFS Form with the requisite specificity as stated herein including, but not limited to, failing to reference specific policy language relevant to any alleged violation, failing to identify the person or persons representing the insurer who are most responsible for/knowledgeable of the facts giving rise to the allegations in the Notice, failing to provide sufficient facts and circumstances giving rise to the alleged violations, and failing to provide a proper cure. Therefore, the Notice is legally deficient and fails to satisfy the condition precedent to filing a bad faith action. See 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 the facts and circumstances regarding this claim, which shall demonstrate that Universal has not violated any Policy terms or statutory provisions. On October 18, 2021, Universal was untimely notified by the Insureds’ public adjuster, PVB Public Adjusters LLC, that the insured location was damaged on August 22, 2021. Universal inspected the property and documented any visible damage. Universal also requested, on multiple instances, the Insureds provide material documents and information to assist in its investigation. The Insureds failed to provide the material documents and information. Consequently, Universal advised the Insureds it was closing its file due to the Insureds’ failure to provide necessary information and material documents requested. Subsequently, following the receipt of some of the requested documents, Universal, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Policy, advised the Insureds that the damage observed to the interior was not covered under the Policy. Additionally, Universal advised that the roofing damage, as estimated, fell below the applicable deductible. On March 29, 2024, the Insureds initiated litigation against Universal in Circuit Court in and for Duval County under Case No. 2024-CA-001652. Thus, at the time of the Notice, the parties were and continue to litigate their disputes to determine what, if any, available coverage exists under the terms of the Policy. Universal did not breach any duty to its Insureds. An Insurer is not required to pay whatever amount its insured demands. While an insurance carrier is required to settle claims that should be settled, it is not required to settle claims that are legitimately contested. As outlined above, the alleged statutory violations set forth in the Notice lack factual support and are therefore without merit. Therefore, the Notice is legally deficient and fails to satisfy the condition precedent to filing a bad faith action. Universal has complied with all policy provisions and applicable Florida law regarding the adjudication 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 Complainants. Sincerely, /s/ Jonathan Rodriguez Jonathan Rodriguez, Esq. Associate General Counsel
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