Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     811631
Filing Accepted:  3/18/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
NEULIGHT   First Name   JOEL AND MERLE
Street Address * 5091 CORBEL LAKE WAY
City, State Zip * BOYNTON BEACH, FL 33437
Email Address * JSNWATER@YAHOO.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   NEULIGHT   First Name   JOEL AND MERLE
Policy # * OIC30038962-03 Claim #* 22FLHOV0014490
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* ALTMAN First Name * ALEXIS Initial
Street Address* 925 SOUTH FEDERAL HIGHWAY, 7TH FLOOR
City, State Zip* BOCA RATON , FL - FLORIDA 33432
Email Address * AALTMAN@KPATTORNEY.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   OLYMPUS INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 12954
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* KYLE PALMER
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Unfair Trade Practice
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Claim Denial
Claim Delay
* Statutory provision(s) which the insurer allegedly violated.
 
624.155(1)(b)(1) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests.
624.155(1)(b)(3) Except as to liability coverages, failing to promptly settle claims, when the obligation to settle a claim has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

loss settlement provision
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

This notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by section 624.155, Florida Statutes. Joel Neulight and Merle Neulight (“insured”) purchased an all-risk policy of insurance with Olympus Insurance Company (“carrier”) to cover their home. The Insured made a claim after suffering damages from Hurricane Ian. The loss was a direct result of a covered peril under the all-risk policy. Although it is clear that the damages are covered, the carrier has not attempted in good faith to settle the insured’s claim 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 their interests. Furthermore, the carrier is required to properly investigate and adjust claims and cannot place that burden upon the insured. This was made clear by the appellate court and the Florida Supreme Court in Allstate Indemnity Co. v. Ruiz, 899 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 2005)(“The Legislature has clearly chosen to impose on the insurance companies a duty to use good faith and fair dealing in processing and litigating the claims of their insureds…”). The insured put the carrier on notice of the damages to their home after Hurricane Ian. The insurance company had Southern Safe Construction go out to the property to inspect. After the inspection, Olympus sent out a denial stating that Olympus had retained its preferred vendor Southern Safe to inspect the property, and they observed cracked and broken tiles to the roofing system but did not observe any evidence of wind or storm created damage and that the water staining to the interior was due to inadequate underlayment. It must be noted, that unless destructive testing was done, there is no way that they would be able to determine the condition of the underlayment. In addition to wrongfully denying the roof, the carrier failed to pay for the ensuing damage that is covered under the policy. Once suit was filed, the Defendant failed to list any individual from Southern Safe as inspecting the property and/or have knowledge of the claim. Defendant’s attorneys continued to advise they did not know who Southern Safe, until confronted with an email that showed that Southern Safe did go to the property. The undersigned moved forward and sent a subpoena to southern safe, which the Defendant’s counsel’s office objected to. After filing a Moton with the Court, the Defendant’s counsel’s office advised that it would allow the president of the company to be deposed. However, this is not who went out to the property. Finally, after months of requests, the Defendant’s office provided the name of the individual who went out to the property, but stated he no longer worked for the company and that Plaintiff’s counsel would have to track him down. It should be noted that Defendant is the party that interjected this company and this individual into the claim and now has Plaintiff’s counsel on a wild goose chase to find this individual that they have been attempting to hide for months now. Pursuant to Florida Statute §624.155(1)(b)(1), Olympus has failed to settle the claim in good faith when it could and should have done so. The damage to the Insured’s property was clearly caused by a covered peril under the Policy, but Olympus has intentionally and wrongfully denied the roof and interior damage, and callously delayed the claim process. Olympus has not shown a good faith intention to pay what was owed but rather has denied the claim and hid the individual who inspected the property for financial gain and profit. Pursuant to Florida Statute §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), Olympus has a duty to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. Olympus has hidden the identify the individual who went out to inspect the property with an intent to misrepresent damages. Florida law mandates that insurers and adjusters do not mislead the Insured. Florida Insurance companies that fail to follow these Florida laws and regulations, designed to protect consumers, do not only breach their duties under the policy of insurance but do so in bad faith. In violation of Florida Statute §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), Olympus intentionally misrepresented the cause of damages and also misrepresented through its counsel who actually inspected the property. Furthermore, the Insured believes Olympus repeatedly and as a standard business practice engages in this behavior to deprive its Insured of their rightful insurance proceeds when they experience a covered loss. Insured contends Olympus has implemented a claims program and business practices that are tailored to increase its profits at the expense of benefits that are owed to its customers and that other Insured have been refused insurance proceeds due and owing under the policy in the same or similar circumstances, and some have been provided inadequate insurance monies under the same or similar facts or circumstances. This is wrongful conduct and directly violates the purpose of insurance coverage. Olympus ’s wrongful conduct and omissions include, but are not limited to: claim delay, not conducting a full and prompt investigation, not treating the policyholder with good faith claims conduct, Olympus for ways to reduce recovery to Insured; Olympus for ways to delay full recovery to Insured; holding back and failing to pay portions of claim clearly owed; not adjusting the claim and evaluating the loss properly, promptly and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to the Insured; not training, supervising or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made, but rather placing the company’s interests before the policyholder’s interests; establishing severity control initiatives and otherwise establishing a culture of not fully and promptly paying claims following losses; and failing to pay the full amount of the Insured’s damage despite knowing it must do so. Consequently, these actions have caused undo frustration and financial harm to the Insured. As a direct and proximate result of the poor handling of this Claim by Olympus the Insured sustained extracontractual damages. Due to the bad faith actions of Olympus Insured was forced to engage the services of the Public Adjuster to attempt to recover the settlement to which they are rightfully entitled. All the aforementioned are part of what appears to be an ongoing pattern and practice of behavior of the carrier that it demonstrates a wanton and reckless regard for the insureds’ rights and a pattern and practice of bad faith claims practices to its insureds across the state of Florida. This notice is provided in order to perfect a right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by Florida Statute §624.155. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, the carrier must: 1) Pay all amounts due and owing to the insured in the amount of $44,700.00 for indemnity benefits, minus the applicable deductible; 2) Pay attorney’s fees and costs; 3) Pay the statutory interest on the amount of unpaid damages from the date of loss to the date payment is finally made. Should you have any questions upon receipt please contact the undersigned at 561-892-9988. Sincerely, Alexis Altman
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
kelsasser@bressler.com 04-10-2025 Via Email, U.S. Mail & Certified Mail: aaltman@kpattorney.com Alexis Altman, Esq. Kanner & Pintaluga, P.A. 925 Federal Hwy, 6th Floor Boca Raton, FL 33432 RE: Complainants: Joel and Merle Neulight Claim No.: 22FLHOV0014490 Policy No.: OIC30038962-03 Insured Location: 5091 Corbel Lake Way, Boynton Beach, FL 33437 Date of Loss: September 28, 2022 CRN No.: 811631 Dear Ms. Altman: Please accept this response on behalf of Olympus Insurance Company (“Olympus”) to the Civil Remedy Notice No. 811631, filed on behalf of Joel and Merle Neulight (“Insureds or “Complainants”), and accepted by the Florida Department of Financial Services on March 18, 2025. The Civil Remedy Notice (“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)(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. Please accept this as Olympus’s Response to the above-referenced Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation (“CRN”) filed with the Department of Financial Services by the named insureds, Joel and Merle Neulight (the “Insureds”). More specifically, this is Olympus’ response to the CRN bearing filing number 811631 with a “filing accepted” date of March 18, 2025. To summarize the below, Olympus hereby denies any allegation of failing to settle claims when under all circumstances it should have done so; failing to settle claims when the obligation to settle has become reasonably clear; failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims; misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions; failing to acknowledge and act promptly to communications; and denying claims without conducting a reasonable investigation. Simply put, Olympus denies any act 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. As an initial matter, the CRN fails to provide any description relating to any acts, facts, or circumstances which give rise to the alleged statutory violations, thus, prejudicing Olympus from providing any meaningful or complete response. Simply put, the CRN is hardly more than a recitation of a number of 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 fails to comply with the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 624.155(3) which requires that a civil remedy notice 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’ investigation and fails to specify facts which support that its investigation was insufficient. To the contrary, the subject property was inspected by both a licensed roofing company as well as a licensed professional engineer. Moreover, the only purported factual allegations specific to the Complainants’ claim appears to be that Olympus and/or its counsel somehow failed to cooperate regarding information pertaining to the inspection completed by Southern Safe Construction (“Southern Safe”). To that end, the Notice alleges that “Once suit was filed, the Defendant failed to list any individual from Southern Safe as inspecting the property and/or have knowledge of the claim. Defendant’s attorneys continued to advise they did not know who Southern Safe, until confronted with an email that showed that Southern Safe did go to the property.” This is a misrepresentation of fact and simply without merit. To the contrary, the name of inspecting company, Southern Safe, was disclosed on the coverage letter dated May 21, 2024, so to allege that Olympus was somehow hiding the identity is without merit. Ironically, despite listing Southern Safe in the coverage letter, Plaintiffs’ counsel and/or Plaintiffs’ counsel’s office first requested the deposition of Olympus’ field adjuster. Upon notification there was no field adjuster who inspected on behalf of Olympus, Plaintiffs’ counsel then requested the deposition of Southern State via email. In response, the undersigned counsel advised that she was unaware of who Southern State was as that was not a company known to have inspected on behalf of Olympus. Only after being confronted with the incorrect entity, which Plaintiffs’ counsel recognized, did they make a request for the deposition of Southern Safe. Importantly, Southern Safe was retained by Olympus as a consulting expert and Florida law is patently clear that the work of the consulting experts hired on behalf of Defendant is protected from disclosure at this time. Nevin v. Palm Beach County School Board, 958 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). An individual retained by a party may not be required to produce the work product of his or her investigation absent an unusual and compelling circumstance. Id. Additionally, documents prepared by Defendant’s field adjusters are protected from disclosure as well. Anchor v. Yanes, 3D20-331 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020). See also State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Desai, 106 So. 3d 5, 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). Despite the protections afforded to consulting experts, in an ongoing effort to cooperate with Complainants and their counsel’s request for the deposition and records of Southern Safe, Olympus and its counsel agreed to provide Complainants with all non-privileged documents in Southern Safe’s possession and to provide a Privilege Log of those documents being withheld under a claim of privilege. This was completed on behalf of Olympus without issue. Additionally, Olympus offered to provide the deposition of Southern Safe’s owner who is both a licensed general contractor and licensed roofer to attest to their inspection and findings at the subject property. Unfortunately, Plaintiffs’ counsel unreasonably rejected this offer and demanded the deposition of the individual employed by Southern Safe who went to the property despite being told on numerous occasions that he no longer worked for Southern Safe, and that Olympus was unaware of his whereabouts. Notwithstanding, Olympus agreed to the deposition should Plaintiffs be able to locate the individual and his name was provided. Plaintiffs counsel was again dissatisfied with Olympus’ offer regarding the deposition and the parties proceeded to a hearing where the Court recognized that Olympus could only undertake its best efforts to find the individual’s last known contact information, which it did. Ultimately, the Plaintiffs and/or their counsel are simply being unreasonable and any perceived “wild goose chase” as alleged in the Notice is of their own doing. To be clear, Olympus remains ready and willing to cooperate with discovery within the scope permitted by Florida law and the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. In addition to the factual omissions and misleading allegations, the CRN makes bold blanket assertions without any factual support whatsoever. The CRN baselessly claims that Olympus “has implemented a claims program and business practices that are tailored to increase its profits at the expense of benefits that are owed to its customers…” and that Olympus “plac[es] the company’s interests before the policyholder’s interests.” These serious allegations are made as blanket statements without one scintilla of factual evidence in support. Olympus vehemently denies all such allegations. The CRN is also deficient for its failure to include any reference to specific policy language that is relevant to the violation as required by Fla. Stat. § 624.155 and the Civil Remedy Notice policy form. The CRN lists only “loss settlement provision” without any specific language contained in that provision or explanation of how the provision allegedly applies to Olympus’ conduct that gives rise to the claimed statutory violations. The Complainants’ failure to include complete policy provisions results in the language being so vague that it is insufficient to provide adequate notice of the alleged breach. Although Fla. Stat. § 624.155 provides that a third-party may not be required to reference the specific policy language under certain circumstances, there is no such relief under the statute for the Insureds, as it is the Insureds’ burden to provide sufficient notice to Olympus regarding any alleged violation. The Complainants’ attempt to vaguely reference broad sections of the policy is insufficient to provide notice of the alleged violation. “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 (MD Fla Apr. 28, 2017). Additionally, the Insureds make no attempt to set forth a basis for their noncompliance with the statute. 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 Fla. Stat. § 624.155. Julien v. United Property & Casualty Insurance Company No. 4D19-2763 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020). Failure to provide specific reference to any specific relevant policy language is direct and clear noncompliance with the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 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. Lastly, the “cure” proposed in this particular CRN is deficient, as it does not actually put Olympus on notice of what the Insureds propose would cure the conclusory allegations of bad faith. The CRN demands that the carrier must “1.) Pay all amounts due and owing to the insured in the amount of $44,700.00 for indemnity benefits, minus any applicable deductible or prior payments; and 2.) Pay attorney’s fees and costs; and 3.) Pay the statutory interest on the amount of unpaid damages from the date of loss to the date payment is finally made.” First, 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)). Additionally, the cure requires that Olympus speculate as to what amounts could constitute the demanded “attorneys’ fees and costs.” There is no guidance on the face of the CRN, or in any documents provided to Olympus, that could possibly allow Olympus to ascertain this amount. As such, 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 . . . .’”). It is important to note that there is varying case law regarding whether and what type of cure is required. In Hunt v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 112 So. 3d 547, 548 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013), the appellate court found that the trial court erred in ruling that the CRN in that case under § 624.155, Fla. Stat. (2006), was invalid for failure to include a definite cure amount. The appellate court noted that Section 624.155(3)(b) did not require a CRN to allege a specific cure amount. That being said, if it is absolutely impossible for the carrier to ascertain a demand, an argument can be made that the CRN fails to provide a true and feasible cure method. This is particularly true where the CRN demands payment of attorney’s fees and interest, in addition to indemnity, as there is no meaningful way for Olympus to determine the amounts involved. As in the instant matter, Olympus has no way of independently determining the amount of attorney’s fees and costs expended in this matter to date. Moreover, it’s worth noting that this is the second civil remedy notice filed on behalf of Complainants and in their prior notice they demanded $183,638.91 for indemnity benefits, yet the instant Notice now alleges $44,700. This drastic change in indemnity benefits allegedly being demanded only goes to demonstrate the conflicting information provided to Olympus throughout the course of this claim and further renders it impossible for Olympus to meaningfully evaluate a cure. Notwithstanding the plethora of deficiencies on the face of the CRN, the actual facts underlying this claim evidence that Olympus did conduct a complete a thorough investigation despite the late reporting of the claim. More specifically, on February 22, 2024, Olympus was first notified of damage to the subject property alleged to have occurred on September 28, 2022. This notice came 1 year, 4 months, 3 weeks, and 4 days after the reported date of loss (512 days). At that time, it was reported that there was wind damage to the tile roof, leak in the garage, outdoor patio floor and tile floor in guest bedroom. Upon receipt of the loss, Olympus immediately commenced an investigation, including issuing of Reservation of Rights and acknowledgment of the Insureds’ retention of a public adjuster. Notably, the contract submitted between the Insureds and their public adjuster confirms their relationship before the loss was ever reported. This directly contradicts the CRN’s allegation that “Due to the bad faith actions of Olympus, Insured was forced to engage the services of the Public Adjuster to attempt to recover the settlement to which they are rightfully entitled.” Olympus also had an inspection performed by Southern Safe, a certified roofing contractor. This inspection on March 5, 2024, revealed cracked and broken tiles to the roofing system, but Southern Safe did not observe any evidence of wind or storm created damage. Water staining was also observed to the interior of the home due to inadequate underlayment. During the course of its investigation, Olympus also retained a recorded statement of the Insureds at which time Mr. Neulight stated that he was not aware of any damage to his property, but contacted public adjuster, Corey Shipley, to inspect his home for potential hurricane Ian damages as Mr. Shipley helped Mr. and Mrs. Neulight’s neighbors get their roof replaced as a result of damage from hurricane Ian. When asked how the reported damage was attributed to hurricane Ian, Mr. and Mrs. Neulight both stated that they were unable to answer how they attributed the damage to hurricane Ian prior to filing the claim. Mr. and Mrs. Neulight then revised their previous statement and stated that they noticed some of the reported damage roughly 6 months prior to reporting the damage to Olympus, although they were unsure how these issues originated. Ultimately, based upon the totality of its investigation, Olympus issued its declination letter on May 21, 2024. The denial letter specifically advised the Insureds of the findings from its inspection, as well as the information provided by the Insureds in their recorded statement, and how their failure to timely report the loss was prejudicial and in violation of the condition of the policy. The applicable policy provisions were set forth in the coverage letter to put the Insureds on notice of Olympus’ position and the portions of the contract in support of same. Therefore, as these facts demonstrate, Olympus did, in fact, undertake a competent and thorough investigation of the claimed loss. While the above detailed recitation of the facts underlying the claim evidence Olympus’ good faith conduct, Olympus nonetheless took the investigation a step further and most recently had yet another inspection completed by independent engineering firm, Grindley Williams. Professional Engineer, Dana Race, inspected the subject property on June 28, 2024. This inspection only confirmed Olympus’ prior determination as Mr. Race found no storm-created openings in the roof covering or building envelope. Rather he observed sign of thermal expansion/contraction, foot traffic, normal aging, age-related wear, manufacturing defects, and mechanical damage. The damage to the garage ceiling was consistent with rainwater infiltration occurring at inadequately sealed portions of the roof surface along a valley which was believed to have been ongoing for a period of months, and the cracked floor tiles were consistent debonding due to accumulated compressive stress in the tile assembly. None of these causes of loss nor the long-term ensuing water damage are covered under the terms of the policy. Accordingly, as outlined above, contrary to the allegations made by the CRN, Olympus sufficiently and diligently investigated the loss in an attempt to overcome the significant prejudice imposed by the Insureds’ late reporting. Olympus maintains that it has acted fairly and honestly toward the Insureds, and any other person having an interest in the subject policy or assisting the Insureds in connection with the instant claims. Olympus consistently and promptly communicated with the Insureds and/or their public adjuster and/or their counsel throughout all stages of the investigation and conducted 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/ Krista L. Elsasser Krista L. Elsasser, 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