Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     811264
Filing Accepted:  3/14/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
TARPON WATERFRONT VILLAGE, LLC   First Name  
Street Address * 4400 LISTER ST
City, State Zip * PORT CHARLOTTE, FL 33952
Email Address * FIRM@FLORIDAINSLAW.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   TARPON WATERFRONT VILLAGE, LLC   First Name  
Policy # * VRRCU- 004520- 01 Claim #* SDA24069050
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* CIOCCHETTI First Name * MICHAEL Initial
Street Address* 125 NORTH RIDGEWOOD AVENUE, SUITE 100
City, State Zip* DAYTONA BEACH , FLORIDA 32114
Email Address * FIRM@FLORIDAINSLAW.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, LONDON
NAIC Company Code
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* MARIA SORIA
Type of Insurance * Commercial Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
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.
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.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

The Building Coverage and Business Interruption Coverage portions of the multiple Policies are relevant to the Claims.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

This complaint is made on behalf of the insured, TARPON WATERFRONT VILLAGE, LLC. Further, this complaint is a statement that notice is hereby given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy pursuant to Florida Statute §624.155. In consideration of the premium paid to it, the carrier, CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S SUBSCRIBING TO BINDING AUTHORITY UMRB604510568622024, UNITED SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,VELOCITY CLAIMS, LLC, FORTEGRA SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,NATIONAL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, VELOCITY SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY (“Carriers”), issued a policy, Policy Nos. VRRCU-004520-01 (CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S) VVXCU- 004520- 01 (UNITED SPECIALTY) VSISMB-004520-01, (VELOCITY) FSVCPP- 004520-01(FORTEGRA) VNICU-004520-01 (NATIONAL FIRE) to TARPON WATERFRONT VILLAGE, LLC (“Insured”) where the policy provided coverage for all losses, except those losses which were expressly excluded, for the property located at 4400 Lister St, Port Charlotte, FL 33952 (“Insured Property”). The policy was in full force and effect at the time the damage occurred from Hurricane Helene, and the ensuing damages as a direct result thereof, to the Insured Property, on or about September 26, 2024. Thereafter, the Carrier was timely notified of the Loss. In particular, the Carrier was put on notice of covered direct damages and ensuing damages and of the request that a claim be opened pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Policy. Claim number SDA24069050 (“Claim”) was assigned to the Loss. The Carrier sent an adjuster to the Insured Property to perform an inspection. The Carrier performed a cursory inspection of the Insured Property and failed to retain unbiased experts necessary to scope the entirety of the Loss and covered repairs necessary to restore the Insured Property to its pre-loss condition. This was done deliberately by the Carrier to undervalue portions of the claim. The Carrier knows its aforementioned investigation is insufficient and that it has failed to provide proper payment to restore the property to its pre-loss condition. This inspection placed The Carrier on notice of the severity of the Loss. The Carrier violated the provisions of Florida Statute §624.155(1)(b)(1) by failing to attempt in good faith to resolve this claim when, under all circumstances, it could and should have done so had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured with a due regard for their interest. When the Carrier was confronted with a comprehensive estimate and verifiable cause of Loss, the Carrier chose to underpay the Insured’s valid Claim for extensive damages that exceed the amount paid. The Carrier violated the provisions of Florida Statute §626.9541(1)(i)(2) by materially misrepresenting to the Insured that Policy coverage was unavailable for the Insured’s Claim and Loss to the Insured Property. This misrepresentation was made in an attempt to underpay the Insured’s Claim and escape without paying for the full extent of substantial damage. The Carrier violated the provisions of Florida Statute §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) by failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. When confronted with a comprehensive estimate and verifiable cause of Loss, the Carrier apparently had no system or standards prepared or implemented which would allow it to evaluate the Claim as submitted by its Insured. The Carrier violated the provisions of Florida Statute §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) by misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to the coverage at issue. This has been discussed fully hereinabove. The Carrier can cure these violations by payment, within 60 days of the date hereof, of all funds contractual owed to the Insured under the terms and conditions of the Policy.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
taylor@floridainslaw.com 07-20-2026 The Carrier has resolved the Civil Remedy Notice to the satisfaction of the Insured, and the Insured hereby withdraws the instant CRN.
ojimenez@wshblaw.com 04-22-2025 Dear Tarpon Waterfront Village, LLC.: We write on behalf of Velocity Claims, LLC (“Velocity”) who administers claims on behalf of Velocity Specialty Insurance Company ("VSIC”) f/k/a Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London ("Underwriters"), National Fire & Marine Insurance Company ("NFMIC"), United Specialty Insurance Company ("USIC") and Fortegra Specialty Insurance Company ("FSIC")(collectively, the "Insurers"), which subscribed to Policy No. 2024-004520-01 issued to you, Tarpon Waterfront Village, LLC (the "Insured"), with effective dates from August 9, 2024 to August 9, 2025 (the "Policy"). The Policy provides coverage for the properties located at 4400 Lister St., Port Charlotte, FL 33952 (the "Property"), subject to its terms, conditions, and exclusions. We understand that the Insured submitted a claim to the Insurers for damages alleged to be the result of Hurricane Helene with a date of loss of September 26, 2024, to which claim number SDA24069050 was assigned (the "Claim"). The Insured filed Civil Remedy Notice No. 811264 on March 14, 2025, and Underwriters provide their response herein. As an initial matter, we note that the Policy includes an Arbitration Clause and Choice of Law provision which provides that all matters in difference shall be referred to an Arbitrational Tribunal. Further, the Arbitration Tribunal shall apply New York Law when resolving all matters in difference between the Parties. To the extent the Insured has any dispute relating to the subject claim, it will need to be resolved via arbitration applying New York Law. As such, the Notice and all Florida statutes and/or law referenced therein would become inapplicable to the subject claim if any differences remain wherein this matter would end up being resolved through the Policy's Arbitration Clause. Although Underwriters contend that Florida law will not apply to any matter in difference for the subject claim, in an abundance of caution Underwriters provide their response to the Notice as follows: While Underwriters welcome the opportunity to respond to this Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations and specifically deny each and every allegation contained in the Civil Remedy Notice filed in relation to this claim, Underwriters believe that the Civil Remedy Notice should be deemed deficient as it fails to comply with the specific information requirements as set forth in Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation document provisions as set forth in Florida Statute §624.155 and Florida case law. If the Notice is not deemed deficient for the reasons stated below, Underwriters respectfully submit that they have not acted in bad faith. To the contrary, Underwriters have acted at all times in good faith and applied the terms of coverage as clearly and unambiguously as stated in the Policy. THE NOTICE IS LEGALLY DEFICIENT The Notice is legally deficient because it fails to comply with many of the requirements of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes (2022). Since Section 624.155 creates a remedy, it must be strictly construed. See Rousso v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., 2010 WL 7367059 (S.D. Fla. 2010) citing Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Buck, 594 So.2d 280, 281 (Fla. 1992) and Talat Enterprises, Inc., v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So.2d 1283–84 (Fla. 2000). First, the Notice in this instance fails to state with specificity the facts and circumstances giving rise to the alleged violations, as required by Section 624.155, Florida Statutes (2022). Moreover, the Notice misrepresents the actual facts of this claim and omits relevant facts that demonstrate how Insurer properly and efficiently adjusted this claim. Section 624.155 mandates that a notice "shall state with specificity . . . the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation" (emphasis supplied). Additionally, a "civil remedy notice must be specific enough to provide the insurer notice of the wrongdoing so that insurer can cure the same within sixty days." See 624.155, Florida Statutes (2022). Here, the Notice fails to state with specificity the facts and circumstances giving rise to the alleged violation. The Insured alleged four (4) separate statutory violations; however, the Insured failed to connect the alleged statutory violations to any facts that support the claim that Insurers violated these statutes. Instead, the Insured generally states violations of these statutes occurred, but provides no specific facts to substantiate these conclusory claims. Rather than explain how Underwriters may have violated these statutes, the Insured simply provides a vague timeline of events which does nothing other than outline the numerous steps Underwriters took to diligently and efficiently investigate the claim. Specifically, the Notice alleges that Underwriters did not attempt in good faith to settle claims; made a material misrepresentation to Insured; has failed to implement standards for proper investigations; and misrepresented pertinent facts relating to coverage. As to the first allegation, the Notice alleges that "[w]hen the Carrier was confronted with a comprehensive estimate and verifiable cause of loss, the Carrier chose to underpay the Insured's valid Claim for extensive damages that exceed the amount paid." It is important to note that throughout the entirety of Underwriters' investigation into the subject Claim, as discussed in additional detail below, the Insured has never submitted an estimate for the damages alleged to be covered. As such, the statement that Underwriters were "confronted with a comprehensive estimate" is false and misleading." Conversely, Underwriters conducted a complete and thorough investigation of the subject Claim. The second allegation states that Underwriters made a material misrepresentation to the Insured "that Policy coverage was unavailable for the Insured's Claim and Loss to the Insured Property". Once again, this statement is false and misleading. As noted in Underwriters' February 28, 2025 correspondence to the Insured, Underwriters thorough and complete investigation of the subject Claim determined that although the Property did suffer damages from a covered cause of loss, the cost to replace such damage was determine to fall below the applicable "Named Storm" deductible. To date, the Insured has failed to submit any documentation indicating that the costs to replace the covered damages exceed the applicable deductible. Underwriters' coverage determination, as detailed in their February 28, 2025 correspondence to the Insured, is supported by competent and substantial evidence. The mere fact that the Insured now contests Underwriters' coverage determination does not make the determination itself a "material misrepresentation". The third allegation states that "[w]hen confronted with a comprehensive estimate and verifiable cause of Loss, the Carrier apparently had no system or standards prepared or implemented which would allow it to evaluate the Claim as submitted by its Insured." As previously noted, the Insured's claim regarding the submission of a "comprehensive estimate" is false and misleading. Additionally, the Notice fails to state with specificity exactly what "systems or standards" Underwriters have allegedly failed to implement. This statement, on its own, is vague and conclusory and is not factually supported. Underwriters note that the Notice is the first instance, throughout the life of the Claim, in which the Insured has lodged any complaint regarding Underwriters' handling of the claim investigation. Finally, the fourth allegation contends that Underwriters "misrepresent[ed] pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to the coverage at issue." However, the Notice fails to specify exactly which "pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions" Underwriters have misrepresented. Once again, this statement is vague and conclusory and does not meet the requirements of Section 624.155. Additionally, Underwriters note that civil remedy notices are required to cite to specific policy provisions and specific policy language which has been violated. In this case, the Notice does not do so, rather it merely states that "[t]he Building Coverage and Business Interruption Coverage portions of the multiple Policies are relevant to the [Claim]", without explaining how these provisions were violated or why coverage should have been afforded for same. "The civil remedy notice must reflect a good-faith effort to inform the insurer of how it has fallen short of its obligations under the policy and what it can do to fix its shortcomings. Rousso, 2010 WL 7367059 (S.D. Fla. 2010). The civil remedy notice is not the place for posturing or advocacy, and an effort to overstate a claim in a civil remedy notice may end up undermining it." Id. Instead of providing Insurer with facts and instances of the Insured's concerns about the claim, the Notice is essentially a "shotgun-blast effort" to assert Insurer is not complying with the provisions of the Policy and Florida law, though no specific evidence of this has been alleged by the Insured. See, Rousso, 2010 WL 7367059 at 5. This type of approach is disfavored by Florida courts because it is contrary to the purpose of Section 624.155. As a result, Underwriters cannot respond to the alleged violations since the policy provisions listed simply list areas of the Policy without citing to the “specific policy language that is relevant to the violation” as the Notice requires. Accordingly, the Insured's Notice is deficient because they do not state specific provisions or language that is relevant to the alleged violations in a manner to provide Underwriters notice of the alleged wrongdoings, as required by Section 624.155. For these reasons, Underwriters respectfully request that the Notice be deemed deficient and insufficient. Further, the Notice is legally deficient because it fails to provide Underwriters with a reasonable opportunity to “cure” the alleged defects. Section 624.155 mandates that “[n]o action shall lie if, within 60 days after the filing the notice, the damages are paid or the circumstances giving rise to the violation are corrected.” The Florida Legislature enacted the sixty-day cure window to provide a “last opportunity for [Underwriters] to comply with their claim-handling obligations.” 316, Inc v. Maryland Cas. Co., 625 F. Supp. 2d 1187, 1192 (N.D. Fla. 2008) (quoting Talat Enters., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d. 1278 (Fla. 2000)). “[T]he purpose of the civil remedy notice is to give the insurer one last chance to settle the claim with its insured and avoid unnecessary bad faith litigation.” 316, Inc., 625 F. Supp. 2d at 1192. Here, the Notice fails to give Underwriters a reasonable opportunity to “cure” the alleged violations. The Notice demands that Underwriters pay "all funds contractual owed to the Insured under the terms and conditions of the Policy." The Notice fails to allege exactly how much the Insured claims they are owed. As previously noted, the Insured has failed to submit an estimate for additional alleges damages to the Property. Without being provided with and exact amount necessary to "cure" the alleged violations, Underwriters are unable to do the same. As such, the Notice does not provide Underwriters with a reasonable opportunity to "cure" the alleged violations and should be deemed deficient in this regard. In closing, Underwriters contend that the Civil Remedy Notice should be deemed deficient due to its failure to comply with Florida Statute §624.155 and Florida case law, and regardless of the deficiencies, Underwriters deny all allegations contained in the Civil Remedy Notice and submit there are no violations. Underwriters' investigation of this claim found covered damages to the Property which, although below the Policy's applicable deductibles, were properly accounted for in their estimate for covered damages. THE INSURERS INVOKE ARBITRATION The Insurers note and reiterate that the Notice and all statutes referenced therein are entirely inapplicable to this matter as all matters in difference must be resolved via arbitration per the terms of the Policy and the Arbitration Panel must apply New York law. The Policy's Arbitration Clause and Choice of Law provision is provided below. SMALL COMMERCIAL PROPERTY FORM *** H. Property Loss Conditions *** 3. Arbitration Clause and Choice of Law All matters in difference between an insured and the Insurer (hereinafter referred to as "the Parties") in relation to this insurance, including its formation, validity, and the arbitrability of any dispute, and whether arising during or after the period of this insurance, shall be referred to an Arbitration Tribunal in the manner hereinafter set out. This Arbitration Clause applies to all persons or entities claiming that they are entitled to any sums under the policy, including, but not limited to, additional insureds, mortgagees, lender's loss payees, assignees, and/or lienholders. 1. This provision governs the appointment of the Arbitration Tribunal. Unless the Parties otherwise agree, the Arbitration Tribunal shall consist of disinterested persons currently or formerly employed or engaged in a senior position in insurance underwriting or claims at an insurer. The Arbitrators may not have any interest or claimed interest in the outcome of the arbitration, including any contingency interest or an assignment of any portion of the claim. The Parties may agree upon a single Arbitrator within thirty (30) days of one receiving a written request from the other for arbitration. If they do not agree on one Arbitrator, the Claimant (the party requesting arbitration) shall appoint his or her Arbitrator and give written notice thereof to the Respondent (the party receiving a request for arbitration). Within thirty (30) days of receiving such notice, the Respondent shall appoint his or her Arbitrator and give written notice of his or her selection to the Claimant. If the Respondent does not provide written notice of his or her Arbitrator within thirty (30) days of receiving the Claimant's notice, the Claimant may nominate an Arbitrator on behalf of the Respondent. The two Arbitrators shall then select an Umpire. If the two Arbitrators fail to agree on the selection of the Umpire within thirty (30) days of the appointment of the second named Arbitrator, each Arbitrator shall submit to the other a list of three Umpire candidates. Each Arbitrator shall then select one name from the list submitted by the other. The Umpire shall be selected from the two names chosen by a lot drawing procedure to be agreed upon by the Arbitrators. The Arbitration Tribunal consists of the Umpire, the Claimant's selected Arbitrator, and the Respondent's selected Arbitrator. 2. The Arbitration Tribunal shall have the power to fix all procedural rules for the Arbitration, including discretionary power to make orders as to any matter which it may consider proper in the circumstances of the case with regard to pleadings, discovery, inspection of documents, examination of witnesses, and any other matter whatsoever relating to the conduct of the Arbitration. The Arbitration Panel may receive and act upon such evidence in its discretion, regardless of whether that evidence is oral or written or strictly admissible or not. 3. The seat of the Arbitration shall be in New York, unless some other location is agreed to by the Parties and the Arbitration Tribunal. The Arbitration Tribunal shall apply the law of New York when resolving all matters in difference between the Parties, regardless of the location of the Arbitration. 4. The Arbitration Tribunal may not award exemplary, punitive, multiple or other damages of a similar nature. 5. The parties shall each bear their own costs, expenses and attorney’s fees in any Arbitration proceeding. Each party will also bear the costs of its own Arbitrator and will bear, jointly and equally with the other party, the costs of the Umpire. The Arbitration Tribunal will allocate the remaining costs of the arbitration. 6. The award of the Arbitration Tribunal shall be in writing and binding upon the Parties, who covenant to carry out the same. If either of the Parties should fail to carry out any award, the other may apply for its enforcement as permitted by the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. 7. The provisions in this Arbitration Clause are severable, and if any portion is found to be unenforceable, the other paragraphs, or parts thereof, shall remain full, valid, and enforceable. SMB 300 2307 CW p. 24-28 of 39 The Insurers hereby invoke arbitration pursuant to the above Policy provisions. The Insurers select Mary Ellen Burns as their party-appointed arbitrator in this matter. The Insurers request that the Insured advise of its proposed party-appointed arbitrator within the next thirty (30) days. UNDERWRITERS ACTED IN GOOD FAITH In the event that the Notice is not considered legally deficient for the reasons stated above, Underwriters deny they have acted in bad faith. To the contrary, Underwriters have acted in good faith and with due consideration of their Insured's interests. Underwriters adjusted the Insured's claim as expeditiously as possible, and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Policy and Florida law. Moreover, the facts of this claim establish that the Insurer acted in good faith while investigating and adjusting this claim. The Notice is merely a contention that Underwriters acted in "bad faith" because they did not pay what the Insured believed they were owed. This is not "bad faith," and is out of step with the governing law and purpose of Civil Remedy Notice practice. See 316, Inc., 625 F. Supp. 2d at 1194. The Policy is this matter provides certain coverages for two buildings located on the Property (respectively "Location 1" and "Location 2"). Notably, Policy specifically excludes any damage which occurred as a result of flood. On November 5, 2024, the Insured, through counsel, reported their claim for damage to the Property as a result of Hurricane Helene, which occurred on our about September 26, 2024. Underwriters immediately assigned Sedgwick Delegated Authority ("the TPA") who adjusted the claim under claim number SDA24069050. On the same day that the claim was received, the TPA submitted a Reservation of Rights letter to the Insured, reminding the Insured of the Policy's requirement that they allowed Underwriters to inspect the Property prior to making repairs to the alleged damaged. Additionally, Underwriters immediately retained both an independent adjuster and a qualified engineer, assigned to inspect the Property and determine the extent of any wind related damages which occurred as a result of Hurricane Helene. Within one month of the initial date that the claim was reported, the independent adjuster and engineer conducted their inspection of the Property, alongside a representative of the Insured. However, upon arrival it was determined that, in clear contravention of the requirements of the Policy, that the Insured has already replaced the roof of Location 2 prior to the engineer's inspection. The engineer determined that the roof, which was previously comprised of composite shingles, had been completely replaced with a metal roof covering, thus constituting an upgrade. However, in an attempt to provide the Insured with the benefit of the doubt, the engineer used historical imagery to opine on the damage to the roof of Location 2 as a result of Hurricane Helen, which consisted of three damages shingles. Additionally, the engineer determined that the large majority of damage to the Property was caused by flood which, as previously noted, is not covered under the terms and conditions of the Policy. In a letter submitted to the Insured shortly after the inspection, the TPA informed the Insured of the Property's extensive flood damage and recommended that they submit a claim for damage to their applicable flood carrier. In accordance with the independent adjuster's inspection, an estimate for the covered damages, which was below deductible for both locations, was drafted and submitted to Insured alongside a letter noting the below deductible valuation. Both the estimate and the letter noting Underwriters' below deductible valuation were submitted to the Insured on February 28, 2025. Contrary to the allegations contained within the Notice, the letter specifically noted all Policy provisions which related to the subject claim. Based on the foregoing, Underwriters adjusted the claim diligently, promptly, and properly. Specifically, Underwriters have not violated statutes 624.155(1)(b)(1), 626.9541(1)(i)(2), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), or 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b). as alleged in the Notice, because Underwriters promptly sent an both an independent adjuster and an engineer to the Property in order to investigate the claim and to determine whether the Property sustained any covered damages associated with the claim. Additionally, Underwriters made no material misrepresentations regarding the facts of the claim or the applicable Policy provisions. Lastly, Underwriters issued their coverage decision based on the terms, conditions, and exclusions of the Policy. Underwriters specifically deny that they acted in bad faith simply because they have not paid the Insured what the Insured believes it is owed in this claim. To the contrary, Underwriters respectfully submit that they adjusted this claim in accordance with the applicable Policy provisions and the laws of Florida; and have acted in good faith throughout the investigation of this claim. For these reasons, Underwriters respectfully emphasize that they have done nothing other than act in good faith. Underwriters vehemently deny that they have acted in bad faith and denies that they have violated any Florida Statutes, Administrative Codes, or any provisions of the subject policy of insurance. Furthermore, and as noted above, if there are any differences remaining that relate to the subject claim they will need to be resolved via arbitration applying New York Law. As such, all of the law and statutes cited in the Notice will become inapplicable to the subject claim. While this response is meant to be comprehensive, Underwriters, along with Sedgwick Delegated Authority and Velocity Risk, LLC, response above is based upon the limited information provided in the Civil Remedy Notice and the information we have to date. If our insured, Tarpon Waterfront Village, LLC, feels that we are not in possession of all the facts, please inform us immediately. Please note that Underwriters' response is not necessarily exhaustive and does not preclude us from asserting any other valid reason for seeking rejection and return of the Civil Remedy Notice. Also, this letter or any act or failure to act on the part of Underwriters, along with Sedgwick Delegated Authority, Velocity Risk, LLC or any agent or representative of Underwriters, along with Sedgwick Delegated Authority and Velocity Risk, LLC should not be construed as a waiver of any rights or defenses available to it by contract or at law as all such rights and defenses are hereby specifically reserved. We trust that this response addresses the allegations of insurer violation alleged in the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation. Should you have any questions regarding this matter or need anything further, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Any further action taken by Underwriters, along with Sedgwick Delegated Authority and Velocity Risk, LLC relative to the investigation of this claim should not be construed as a waiver, invalidation, prejudice, or relinquishment of any rights or defenses Underwriters may possess. Nothing contained in this letter or any prior correspondence shall in any way waive your or Underwriters' rights under the Policy. Underwriters will continue to insist upon full and complete compliance with all Policy's terms and conditions. Please understand nothing contained in this letter, or in any prior or subsequent communication on behalf of Underwriters voids, waives, or otherwise modifies any provision set forth in the Policy, and all policy provisions are hereby expressly reserved, as well as all provisions of applicable law without exception or waiver. Additionally, no action taken on the part of Underwriters, along with Sedgwick Delegated Authority and Velocity Risk, LLC, in ascertaining any issues regarding coverage or the amount of loss or damage that may have occurred shall in any way waive, invalidate, or prejudice the rights of Underwriters. For all purposes, Underwriters reserve all rights, claims and defenses to which they may be entitled by virtue of either the Policy or applicable law. Your failure to cooperate in Underwriters' investigation of the above-referenced insurance claim may affect your rights under the Policy. Sincerely, WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP By: /s/ Malik Ramelize___________ MALIK T. RAMELIZE, ESQ. RICHARD M/ SINGER, 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