Civil Remedy Filing

Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations

Filing Number: 811989

Filing Accepted: 3/19/2025

Print Filing

Complainant

Last/Business Name *

AND PAIGE GRIGLUN

First Name

GARY DIPIETRO

Street Address *

7884 10TH AVENUE SOUTH

City, State Zip *

SAINT PETERSBURG, FL 33707

Email Address *

INTAKE2@THEKRFIRM.COM

Complainant Type: *

Insured

Last/Business Name*		AND PAIGE GRIGLUN		First Name		GARY DIPIETRO
Policy # *		12-1041734-04		Claim #*		12-3028742-24

Attorney

Attorney is Applicable

Last Name*	KADIR First Name * ALI Initial A.
Street Address*		986 DOUGLAS AVE, STE. 102
City, State Zip*		ALTAMONTE SPRINGS , FL 32714
Email Address *		INTAKE2@THEKRFIRM.COM

Violation

Insurer Type *		Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer

Insurer Name
Insurer Name*		TYPTAP INSURANCE COMPANY
Insurer Name*
Street Address*
City, State Zip*		,
NAIC Company Code 15885

Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* GARRETT JOHNSON, BETHEL-MARGARET (“MAGGIE”) W. DANIELS, GRISTON CLAIM MANAGEMENT INC., AND ALL TYPTAP CLAIMS ADJUSTERS, EMPLOYEES, REPRESENTATIVES, AGENTS, VENDORS, AND/OR ENGINEERS WHO HANDLED THE CLAIM.
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty

Reason for Notice *

	Claim Denial
	Claim Delay
	Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
	Unfair Trade Practice
	Other : Misrepresentation

* 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.
	626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e)		Failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and, as to partial coverage, the dollar amount or extent of coverage, or failing to provide a written statement that the claim is being investigated, upon the written request of the insured within 30 days after proof-of-loss statements have been completed.
	626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f)		Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of the basis in the insurance policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement.
	626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g)		Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim.
	626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h)		Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary.
	626.9541(1)(i)(4)		Failing to pay undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed under first-party property insurance policies within 60 days after an insurer receives notice of a residential property insurance claim, determines the amounts of partial or full benefits, and agrees to coverage, unless payment of the undisputed benefits is prevented by factors beyond the control of the insurer as defined in s. 627.70131(5).

* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

“We insure against direct physical loss to property described in Coverages A and B.” TypTap possesses a complete copy of the subject insurance policy. The Insureds are not in possession of a complete copy of the subject policy and is requesting a copy from TypTap. Thus, this CRN cannot cite subject policy language verbatim due to such. Notwithstanding, the subject policy is an all-risks insurance policy and the applicable policy language is the provision regarding coverage of all risks for the dwelling (Language such as “We insure against direct physical loss to property…”, “We insure against risk of direct loss to property…”, among other similar policy language etc. is typically used.) and provisions regarding exclusions or limitations to this all-risks provision.

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

Gary DiPietro and Paige Griglun (“the Insureds”) are homeowner insureds with an all-risks policy issued by TypTap Insurance Company (“TypTap”). The insured property or home is located at 7884 10th Avenue South, Saint Petersburg, Florida 33707. In October of 2024, a hurricane caused extensive damage to the Insureds’ home. The Insureds timely reported an insurance claim for this damage to TypTap and fully cooperated with all requests for inspections. They provided all requested documentation, if any, and complied with all post loss policy conditions. An estimate for repair of all damages with respect to the Insureds’ claim was prepared on their behalf for $58,900.86 and was submitted to TypTap. After reporting the claim, TypTap retained an unqualified and biased field adjuster who has a financial relationship with TypTap. This field adjuster inspected the Insureds’ home in an apparent effort to minimize TypTap’s losses instead of adjusting the claim in good faith in due regard for the Insureds’ interests. Despite TypTap finding coverage for their claim, it significantly undervalued the Insureds’ claim at only $4,921.48. Because this amount is less than the subject policy’s deductible, TypTap did not issue any payment to the Insureds. Due to such, the Insureds have not been able to permanently repair their home. Indeed, an estimate for repair of all damages with respect to their claim was prepared on behalf of the Insureds for $58,900.86 and was submitted to TypTap; well above the amount from TypTap. Based on these facts, it is clear TypTap unreasonably denied full coverage for the Insureds’ claim in bad faith through its extremely low and unreasonable undervaluation of their claim. Had TypTap conducted a reasonable investigation based upon the available information, it would have been evident that affording greater coverage and issuing a substantially higher payment is warranted. Instead, it failed to adopt and implement standards for proper claim investigation as well as misrepresented pertinent policy provisions/facts rather than act fairly and/or honestly with the Insureds in due regard for their interests. TypTap also delayed the claim and failed to timely respond to communications. This has become a common business practice of TypTap. Florida Statute § 624.02 defines insurance as a contract whereby one undertakes to indemnify another or pay or allow a specified amount or a determinable benefit based on determinable contingencies. Inherent is the fact that payment must be made timely and promptly so that insureds may mitigate their damages and be put back into the position they were in prior to the loss as quickly as possible. TypTap has breached this duty by refusing to properly and timely adjust the loss. As a result, the Insureds will have no choice but to retain the undersigned counsel to file a lawsuit against TypTap. TypTap has more than enough information and is still refusing to accept coverage for this claim. This continued and repeated reckless claim delay and denial of coverage will result in a significant punitive damage award if a bad faith lawsuit is filed. TypTap can avoid a lawsuit for bad faith by immediately accepting full coverage under the subject insurance policy for this claim and by paying the Insureds $48,520.86, which is the policy limit for coverage A less the 2% hurricane deductible.

Comments

User Id		Date Added		Comment
claims@typtap.com		05-16-2025		This is TypTap Insurance Company’s (“TypTap”) response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (“CRN”) filed on behalf of Gary Dipietro and Paige Griglun (“Insured”). TypTap reviewed this CRN and conducted a thorough review of the subject claim (“claim”) and confirmed it handled the claim properly. TypTap handled the claim in accordance with the policy and all statutory and regulatory requirements. TypTap denies each allegation of bad faith and improper conduct in the CRN. At all times, TypTap acted in good faith, fairly and honestly toward the Insured and with due regard for the Insured’s interests. Otherwise, the CRN is deficient. Generally, pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 624.155, CRNs must identify and set forth statutory provisions insurers allegedly violated in handling insureds’ insurance claims along with specific, relevant insurance contract language and facts and circumstances. The foregoing provides insurers with notice of alleged statutory violations AND the opportunity to cure such alleged violations. Instead of complying with Florida Statutes, Section 624.155, the Insured’s attorney in the CRN contained an inaccurate recitation of the facts, failed to reference specific, relevant insurance policy language; cited irrelevant statutes; and relied on inaccurate and conclusory statements. The Insured’s laundry list of inapplicable statutes is insufficient. Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). Furthermore, the Insured’s attorney filed a lawsuit based on the claim shortly after the filing of this CRN. Regardless of the fact there were no violations in this claim, any action by TypTap to cure violations alleged in the CRN could have been used against TypTap in the lawsuit. The foregoing shows abuse by the Insured and the Insured’s attorney of the CRN and legal processes. Also and generally, the CRN constitutes an abuse of the CRN process, contravenes the purpose of CRNs, which is to promote resolution of issues in insurance claims. The CRN must be rejected, and it cannot serve as the basis of any action against TypTap. Upon request by the Florida Department of Financial Services, TypTap will provide to the DFS detailed correspondence TypTap provided regarding the claim.

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