Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     810907
Filing Accepted:  3/13/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
MORETTI   First Name   JOSEPH
Street Address * 15260 DEVON GREEN LANE
City, State Zip * NAPLES, FL 34110
Email Address * NITROGENJOE@EARTHLINK.NET
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   MORETTI   First Name   JOSEPH
Policy # * OIC30101783-00 Claim #* 22FLHOV0014824
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* SMITH First Name * RYAN Initial
Street Address* 350 N LAKE DESTINY ROAD
City, State Zip* MAITLAND , FL 32751
Email Address * RSMITH@ITSABOUTJUSTICE.LAW
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   OLYMPUS INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 12954
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* N/A
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
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)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
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)(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.

A certified copy of the policy is not in the Insureds’ possession, but based on information and belief, the following policy provisions are relevant to this civil remedy notice. Section 1 - Property Coverages – Coverage A – Dwelling Section 1 – Perils Insured Against – Coverage A-Dwelling and Coverage B-Other Structures Section 1- Conditions –Loss Settlement Section 1 – Conditions –Loss Payment
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

On or about September 28, 2022, the Insured, Joseph Moretti, suffered significant damage to his home located at 15260 Devon Green Lane, Naples, FL 34110 as a result of Hurricane Ian. Hurricane Ian came ashore in Florida as a Category 5 hurricane and caused catastrophic storm damage to much of the region, and was the third most-damaging Atlantic Hurricane in history. Prior to the loss, Olympus Insurance Company issued a policy of insurance (Policy No.: OIC30101783-00) for the Insured’s property. Said policy, which was in full force and effect on date of loss, afforded coverage for reasonable repairs rendered to protect property from further damage following a covered loss. Olympus was timely notified of the claim once the extent of the damage was known and assigned claim number 22FLHOV0014824. Upon the insured’s discovery of damages to the roof and interior of the property, they contracted with Charger Construction of Southwest Florida to evaluate the damage and assist with the presentation of the claim. The claim was reported to the insurance company on or about April 25, 2024; as of the date of this writing, the insurance company has yet to come to a coverage determination. Instead, the insurance company continues to cause unnecessary delays in its efforts to un-Earth Jimmy Hoffa on the subject claim. During the investigation by Olympus, the insured complied with all requests from the insurance company and made the property available for multiple inspections. This includes but is not limited to Mr. Moretti providing a recorded interview, submitting requested documentation to assist with the carrier’s inspection, and providing an Examination Under Oath (“EUO”). During Mr. Moretti’s EUO on November 1, 2024 (almost 6 months after reporting the claim), he advised that at the time of the passage of Hurricane Ian, the concrete tile roof was approximately five years old. Mr. Moretti further described that the entirety of the roof had just been replaced in conjunction with a different roof claim in 2017. Despite being provided the information requested by the insurance company as well as sufficient photographic and written documentation to support the homeowner’s loss and damages, Olympus further dug in its heels to avoid paying the claim. As its next measure to search for ways to avoid paying for the obvious need to replace the roof based upon widespread damages, the insurance company requested the EUOs of the homeowner’s wife (a non-named insured on the policy) as well as of the homeowner’s contractor (Charger Construction of Southwest Florida). The insurance company proceeded to set the EUOs of these non-named insureds to occur on February 27, 2025 (ten months after the claim was reported) and was further provided information relevant to the damages and timeline of events leading up to and after Hurricane Ian. Now more than two weeks have passed since the taking of these EUOs (albeit unnecessarily, and far-reaching beyond the policy language) and the insurance company continues to delay and refuse to provide a coverage determination. These delays have left the insured to face both the 2024 Hurricane season which caused for Floridians to sustain damage from Hurricanes Debby, Helene, and Milton. The insurance company’s ongoing failure to provide coverage on the subject claim now leaves the insured to face the 2025 Hurricane season with a significantly damaged roof. At this point it is resoundingly clear—Olympus has and continues to drag its feet. Pursuant to the terms of the policy and Section 627.70131, Florida Statutes, Olympus was obligated to either issue payment or deny coverage for the Insureds’ claim within 90 days. This appears to be common practice for Olympus to fail to render a coverage determination, and rather than make a payment on the claim, it chooses to engage in superfluous and harassing exercises in an effort to justify delays to pay on properly presented and justified claims. Despite being given more than ten months (rather than the statutorily permitted 90 days) days to complete its investigation—Olympus appears to have reached the point of not knowing what its next move is going to be. So instead of making payments, Olympus instead is attempting to cause for the insured to grow desperate to resolve of the claim for the insurance company’s benefit. One has to wonder why Olympus is attempting to justify such a rigorous exercise in allowing for coverage of hurricane-caused roof damage on a 5 year old roof, and not come to a conclusion. This appears to have been nothing more than a delay tactic. It is clear that Olympus has not acted honestly or fairly towards the insureds, during the adjustment of its claim. It has become a general business practice of Olympus to not implement proper claims handling procedures and to not settle claims in good faith when under all the circumstances it should have. As is the case here, it is a pattern and practice for Olympus to arbitrarily delay payment for claims. Olympus then fails to provide any explanation as to why benefits have been withheld or what additional information may be needed to adjust its claims (over the course of a ten month investigation). Olympus’s unwillingness to implement proper standards causes it to not respond to claim communications or timely issue its coverage determinations in accordance with the terms of its policies and Florida law. To remedy the aforementioned issues set forth in this civil remedy notice, Olympus must immediately tender the reasonable amount of insurance benefits owed to the insureds in accordance with the terms of the policy. The payment should be tendered in the form of a check to “Cohen Law Group f/b/o Joseph Moretti” to the insured’s attorney, Ryan Smith, Esq., at 350 N. Lake Destiny Road, Suite 300, Maitland, FL 32751.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
mshifrin@bressler.com 04-15-2025 Dear Mr. Smith, Esq.: Please accept this response on behalf of Olympus Insurance Company (hereinafter “Olympus”) to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (hereinafter “CRN”) No. 810907, filed on behalf of Joseph Moretti (hereinafter, the “Complainant” or the “Insured”), and accepted by the Florida Department of Financial Services on March 13, 2025. The CRN alleges that Olympus violated the following 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 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)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. • 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)(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 provided by factors beyond the control of the insurer as defined in s. 627.70131(5). Please accept this as Olympus’s response to the above-referenced CRN filed with the Department of Financial Services by the Complainant, Joseph Moretti. To summarize the below, Olympus hereby denies any allegation of not attempting to settle claims in good faith when it could and should have done so; failing to promptly settle claims when the obligation to settle a claim has become reasonably clear; failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims; failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims; failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of the basis in the insurance policy for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement; failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim; and/or 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, and states that it has at all times handled and adjusted the Complainant’s claim with utmost good faith. Simply put, Olympus denies any acts or omission that could be construed or found to be deemed bad faith and/or a violation of Florida Statutes § 624.155 and § 626.9541, whether expressly stated in the Civil Remedy Notice or implied. Any and all allegations of bad faith are hereby denied and rejected in their entirety by Olympus. Olympus denies and rejects the instant CRN as it fails to comply with the requirements of Florida Statute § 624.155. The CRN is therefore deficient and fails to preserve any and all claims for statutory bad faith under Florida Law. Florida Statute § 624.155 requires a complainant to file with the Department of Financial Services a Civil Remedy Notice which shall be “on a form provided by the [Department] and shall state with specificity…such other information as the Department may require.” The Department created a CRN form, Form DFS-10-363, which lays out 15 requirements, including in part, the complainant’s e-mail address, complainant type, claim number, attorney’s name, attorney’s address, attorney’s e-mail address, type of insurer, the person with knowledge of the facts giving rise to the allegations, and the reason for notice. According to § 624.155, these mandates are required by the Department, and they must be stated with specificity. The instant CRN fails to provide the specificity required by § 624.155 and fails to comply with the form requirements as a whole. Therefore, the instant CRN is facially deficient. See Bay v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, No. 4D19-3332, 2020 WL 6154256 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct. 21, 2020). Specifically, the instant CRN filing states “N/A” in the section designated for identifying the person or persons representing the insurer who are most responsible for/knowledgeable of the facts giving rise to the allegations in this notice. This is an incomplete response and one which provides no context into the subject claim nor the Complainant’s allegations against Olympus. Whether the Complainant misread the Department’s prompt or simply dismissed what the Department had requested and failed to include any of the various people who have assisted with their claim, the Complainant’s failure to comply with the requisite baseline form requirements is insufficient under Florida law to support any action for bad faith against Olympus without speculation on its part. Due to this intentional withholding of mandated information, the CRN is facially deficient as it fails to comply with the form requirements set forth in Florida Statute § 624.155, and specifically § 624.155(3)(b)(3). See Bay v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, No. 4D19-3332, 2020 WL 6154256 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct. 21, 2020). Furthermore, the CRN’s attempt to identify the specific policy language relevant to the violation is woefully deficient. “Courts have found that listing whole sections of the insurance policy constitutes insufficient specificity.” See Fox v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., No. 8:16-CV-3254-T-23MAP, 2017 WL 1541294 at *2 and Julien v. United Property & Casualty Insurance Company No. 4D19-2763 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020).” When prompted to reference the policy language that is relevant to the alleged violation, the Complainant makes absolutely no effort to provide relevant policy language. Instead, the Complainant simply lists four generic headings which presumably pertain to the policy without any specific language or context. A copy of the Policy was e-mailed to the Insureds’ counsel in response to his request in September 2024 so the Insured should have referenced the policy language that is relevant to the allegations. Notwithstanding, the Complainant failed to properly respond to the Department’s prompt, again dismissing the mandated information needed to submit a valid CRN against an insurer. Accordingly, the CRN does not provide the contemplated and mandated notice of alleged bad faith that is required as a condition precedent to any civil claim for bad faith pursuant to Florida Statute § 624.155. Julien v. United Property & Casualty Insurance Company No. 4D19-2763 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020). Failure to provide specific reference to any relevant policy language is direct and clear noncompliance with the requirements of Florida Statute § 624.155, and therefore renders the CRN deficient on its face as to form and substance. For these reasons alone, the CRN fails at its inception. Additionally, the CRN fails to provide a complete description relating to the facts and/or circumstances which give rise to the alleged statutory violations, thus, prejudicing Olympus from providing any meaningful or complete response. In summary, the CRN is hardly more than a recitation of several Florida statutory provisions, with minimal factual allegations in support of the conclusory statutory recitations. A Civil Remedy Notice must state the facts and circumstances that give rise to an alleged violation with specificity sufficient to allow an insurer to cure the alleged violation within the sixty-day statutory period. Lane v. Westfield Insurance Company, 862 So.2d 774 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). The instant CRN therefore fails to comply with the requirements of Florida Statute § 624.155(3), which requires that a CRN of insurer violation “state with specificity,” inter alia, the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation and the “specific” language of the subject insurance policy that is relevant to the violation. The CRN fails to specify what was lacking in Olympus’s investigation and fails to specify facts which support that its investigation was unfair or merits additional steps. Generally, the CRN lacks the requisite facts and/or specificity, as ruled on numerous times and cited to throughout this response, to put Olympus on notice as to the allegations against it. Moreover, the few facts that are stated in the CRN are contrary to the facts of the underlying claim or are at best misleading. The CRN states that the claim was reported to the insurance company on or about April 25, 2024 for storm damage that purportedly occurred on September 28, 2022. The CRN alleges that Olympus “continues to cause unnecessary delays in its effort to un-Earth Jimmy Hoffa on the subject claim.” In response, Olympus states that it is not aware of any individual named Jimmy Hoffa that is associated with this claim or property. Olympus also states that upon receiving notice of the loss, it immediately commenced its investigation and inspected the property. Olympus also issued Requests for Information letters dated May 14, 2024 and June 24, 2024. Olympus then re-inspected the property with Grindley Williams engineering on July 16, 2024. After evaluating the claimed damage, Olympus continued its investigation by scheduling the Examination Under Oath (‘EUO’) of Mr. Joseph Moretti and his representative from Charger Construction of SW Florida to occur on November 1, 2024. Per the request of his counsel, Mr. Joseph Moretti’s EUO was subsequently re-noticed for November 20, 2024. During the EUO on November 20, 2024, Mr. Joseph Moretti testified that the property had a prior roof claim and roof damage in 2017 while insured with Peoples Trust Insurance Company. Mr. Moretti testified that after this claim, he completely replaced the Property’s roof in July 2017. Mr. Moretti also testified that after replacing the roof in 2017, Tesla installed two iterations of solar panels in June 2020 and again in May 2021. Mr. Moretti testified that aside from the solar panel installation, there has been no repairs nor maintenance to the roof since its replacement. During his EUO, Mr. Moretti was not able to explain why the photographs of the claimed damage to the roofing system show prior repairs to roof tiles and he had no knowledge of who completed those tile repairs nor when. To investigate the inconsistencies between the Insureds EUO testimony and the physical condition of the roof, Olympus issued a reservation of rights and request for information letter dated December 2, 2024. Counsel for Olympus also explained to Mr. Moretti’s attorney the basis for its requests via email on December 6, 2024. Olympus subsequently coordinated the EUOs of the co-insured wife Agnieszka Moretti and the Insureds representative from Charger Construction of SW Florida to occur on February 27, 2025. Following these EUOs, Olympus issued another reservation of rights and request for information letter dated March 17, 2025 seeking additional information about the property’s roof including, but not limited to, proof that it was fully replaced in 2017, records from the prior Peoples Trust Insurance claim, correspondence with the homeowners association discussing the roof’s replacement, and a request to execute and return an authorization for release of information. On or about March 28, 2025, Olympus issued a status letter and follow up request for the pending records and information that were still outstanding and necessary to complete its investigation. Olympus also promptly acknowledged and responded to the insured’s attorney on March 31, 2025 with an additional explanation about the relevance and basis for the requests. On April 8, 2025, Olympus received Mr. Joseph Moretti’s executed authorization for release of information and immediately began contacting the companies identified in the authorization to request copies of the relevant records for this property. Throughout the course of this investigation, Olympus has been diligent in promptly updating the Insured about the status of his claim and any suggestion otherwise is patently false. The CRN alleges that upon discovery of the roof and interior damages, the Insured contracted with Charger Construction of Southwest Florida to evaluate the damage and assist with the presentation of the claim. This allegation directly conflicts with the Insureds EUO testimony that Charger Construction of Southwest Florida offered a free roof inspection and this company discovered the storm damage and informed him about it. The CRN also re-iterates Mr. Moretti’s EUO testimony that he replaced the roofing system following his prior 2017 loss and that the roof was only approximately 5 years old. The CRN alleges that Mr. Moretti provided the information requested by Olympus which is not entirely accurate. Mr. Moretti did provide some documents but never supplied proof of the roof replacement nor records from his prior loss because he admittedly no longer had those in his possession. This was the reason that Olympus requested an authorization for release of information so that it could contact those companies on the Insureds behalf to request and obtain the missing records which the Insured had not supplied. During the EUO of the Insureds’ representative from Charger Construction of SW Florida, this witness testified that it would be impossible to replace the subject roof for the amount reflected in the re-roof permit #PRBD2017051777401. Accordingly, Olympus is well-founded in its investigation to try and confirm whether the roof was replaced because that issue is integral to this claim. Olympus received Mr. Moretti’s executed authorization for release of information on April 8, 2025 and, since then, Olympus has been diligently contacting these companies to request the outstanding records so it can confirm the Insureds EUO testimony was accurate and finalize its investigation of the loss. Olympus refutes any allegation that it is purposefully delaying payment of the claim and states that its actions are being taken in furtherance of completing a thorough and comprehensive investigation of the Insured’s EUO testimony and claimed damages so that it can make an informed and correct decision regarding the loss. Contrary to the CRN allegations, the facts of this claim disprove each baseless allegation that the Complainant has raised: Olympus diligently investigated the subject loss within days of it being reported, inspected the reported damages through an independent licensed construction company and an engineer, evaluated the observed damages, requested and obtained sworn testimony regarding the facts of loss, requested documents that supported the Insureds EUO testimony, and has been diligently investigating the facts in relation to the EUO testimony and documents that were provided. Throughout the handling of the subject claim, Olympus has actively engaged in open communication with the insured Complainant and their representative(s), answered questions over the phone and through email, provided written explanation about the basis for its requests and their relevant, etc. Finally, the Complainant’s’ cure demand is indiscernible and as such Olympus is not given a fair opportunity to cure the CRN. The CRN states “To remedy the aforementioned issues set forth in this civil remedy notice, Olympus must immediately tender the reasonable amount of insurance benefits owed to the insureds in accordance with the terms of the policy.” This is the functional equivalent of “Pay me everything I’ve asked for.” Rousso v. Liberty Surplis Ins. Co., 2010 WL 736059, *5 (S.D. Fla. 2010). “Insurers are not required to pay any amount demanded by their insureds to avoid a bad-faith claim.” Id. (citing 316, Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 625 F. Supp. 2d 1187, 1194 (N.D. Fla. 2008)). However, regardless of its legitimacy, the CRN itself contains a cure in the form of an admission of liability and Olympus cannot even begin to attempt to cure the instant CRN on such unclear terms. The cure provides no specified amount demanded nor any basis for Olympus to even attempt to calculate what it seeks when demanding some unclear payment to the insured Complainant. Given the cure, Olympus affirmatively asserts that the CRN is deficient. Since no other distinct basis for a cure has been set forth by the Civil Remedy Notice, Olympus was not provided with a reasonable opportunity to purge any alleged violations. See Kafie v. NorthWestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 834 F. Supp. 2d 1354, 1359 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (“In order to demonstrate good faith, ‘[t]he insurer must investigate the facts, [and] give fair consideration to a settlement offer that is not unreasonable under the facts…’”). Based on the facts provided, it is impossible for Olympus to satisfy the Complainant without significantly prejudicing itself, and therefore the CRN fails to provide a true and feasible cure method. Accordingly, the CRN does not provide the contemplated and mandated notice of alleged bad faith that is required as a condition precedent to any civil claim for bad faith pursuant to Florida Statute § 624.155. Similarly, for these reasons, the CRN fails. As outlined above, contrary to the allegations made by the CRN, Olympus has been diligently investigating the loss. Olympus maintains that it has acted fairly and honestly toward the Complainant, and any other person having an interest in the subject policy or assisting the Complainant in connection with the instant claim. Olympus consistently and promptly communicated with the Complainant and/or their agents throughout this investigation and has been conducting a thorough investigation in good faith. To the extent that the instant CRN is intended to address any other facts or circumstances which purport to establish additional coverage for the reported losses, the CRN provides insufficient identification of any such facts or circumstances and therefore prevents Olympus from addressing any other aspect herein. Notwithstanding, Olympus believes that the above facts demonstrate beyond dispute that it has at all times acted in good faith with regard to its investigation of the subject claim and further believes that the facts provided to date fail to establish that it has not adjusted the reported loss in accordance with the express terms, provisions, limitations and exclusions contained within the policy. If we can provide any additional information, or be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, /s/ Michael A. Shifrin, Esq. _ Michael A. Shifrin, Esq.
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