Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     812069
Filing Accepted:  3/20/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
SCHAIBLE   First Name   EVELYN
Street Address * 100 BOCILLA DRIVE
City, State Zip * PLACIDA, FL 33946
Email Address * RS@WEKLAW.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   SCHAIBLE   First Name   EVELYN
Policy # * 441578 Claim #* 925101
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* SUGATHAPALA First Name * RUWAN Initial
Street Address* 800 EAST BROWARD BLVD., SUITE 500
City, State Zip* FORT LAUDERDALE , FLORIDA 33301
Email Address * RS@WEKLAW.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   HOMEOWNERS CHOICE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.
NAIC Company Code 12944
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* CHRISTOPHER BARNETT, STEPHANIE GROVER BROCK, DAISY PRINCESA
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
Claim Delay
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
* Statutory provision(s) which the insurer allegedly violated.
 
624.155(1)(b)(1) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests.
624.155(1)(b)(3) Except as to liability coverages, failing to promptly settle claims, when the obligation to settle a claim has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage.
626.9541(1)(i)(2) A material misrepresentation made to an insured or any other person having an interest in the proceeds payable under such contract or policy, for the purpose and with the intent of effecting settlement of such claims, loss, or damage under such contract or policy on less favorable terms than those provided in, and contemplated by, such contract or policy.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e) Failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and, as to partial coverage, the dollar amount or extent of coverage, or failing to provide a written statement that the claim is being investigated, upon the written request of the insured within 30 days after proof-of-loss statements have been completed.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f) Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of the basis in the insurance policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g) Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

I. Loss Payment We will adjust all losses with you. PERIL INSURED AGAINST 1. We insure for direct physical loss to the property described in Coverages A, B and C caused only by the peril of windstorm or hail unless the loss is excluded in EXCLUSIONS. 2. With respect to paragraph 1. above, coverage for loss caused by a Peril Insured Against includes loss to: a. Watercraft of all types and their trailers, furnishings, equipment, and outboard engines or motors, only while inside a fully enclosed building. b. The inside of a building or the property we cover contained in a building caused by: (1)Rain; (2)Snow; (3)Sleet; (4)Hail; (5)Sand; or (6)Dust; if the direct force of the windstorm or hail first damages the building, causing an opening through which the rain, snow, sleet, hail, sand or dust enters and causes damage. d. We will initially pay at least the actual cash value of the insured loss, less any applicable deductible. We will then pay any remaining amounts necessary to perform such repairs as work is performed and expenses are incurred, subject to 2.a. and 2.b. above. D. Coverage D – Loss of Use The limit of liability for Coverage D is the total limit for the coverages in 1. Additional Living Expense, 2. Fair Rental Value and 3. Civil Authority Prohibits Use below. 1. Additional Living Expense a. If a loss covered under PROPERTY COVERAGES makes that part of the “residence premises” where you reside not fit to live in, we cover any necessary increase in living expenses incurred by you so that your household can maintain its normal standard of living. b. Payment will be for the shortest time required to repair or replace the damage or, if you permanently relocate, the shortest time required for your household to settle elsewhere. c. In either event, the payment(s) will be limited to 24 consecutive months from the date of the covered loss. E. Additional Coverages 1. Debris Removal a. We will pay the reasonable expense you incur for the removal of: (1)Debris of covered property if a Peril Insured Against that applies to the damaged property causes the loss; or b. We will also pay the reasonable expense you incur, up to $1,000, for the removal from the “residence premises” of: (1)Your tree(s) felled by a Peril Insured Against; 2. Reasonable Repairs a. We will pay the reasonable cost incurred by you for the necessary measures taken solely to protect covered property that is damaged by a Peril Insured THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. PERSONAL PROPERTY REPLACEMENT COST LOSS SETTLEMENT A. Eligible Property 1. Covered losses to the following property are settled at replacement cost at the time of the loss: a. Coverage C; and b. If covered in this policy: (1)Outdoor antennas and outdoor equipment; and (2)Household appliances; whether or not attached to buildings. 2. This method of loss settlement will also apply to the following articles or classes of property if they are separately described and specifically insured in this policy and not subject to agreed value loss settlement: a. Jewelry; b. Furs and garments; (1)Trimmed with fur; or (2)Consisting principally of fur; c. Cameras, projection machines, films and related articles of equipment; d. Musical equipment and related articles of equipment; e. Silverware, silver-plated ware, goldware, gold-plated ware and pewterware, but excluding: (1)Pens or pencils; (2)Flasks; (3)Smoking implements; or (4)Jewelry; and f. Golfer's equipment meaning golf clubs, golf clothing and golf equipment. Personal Property Replacement Cost loss settlement will not apply to other classes of property separately described and specifically insured. B. Ineligible Property Property listed below is not eligible for replacement cost loss settlement. Any loss will be settled at actual cash value at the time of loss but not more than the amount required to repair or replace. 1. Antiques, fine arts, paintings and similar articles of rarity or antiquity which cannot be replaced. 2. Memorabilia, souvenirs, collector’s items and similar articles whose age or history contribute to their value. 3. Articles not maintained in good or workable condition. 4. Articles that are: a. Outdated or obsolete; and b. Are stored or not being used. C. Replacement Cost Loss Settlement Condition The following loss settlement condition applies to all property described in A. above: 1. We will pay no more than the least of the following amounts: a. Replacement cost at the time of loss without deduction for depreciation; b. The full cost of repair at the time of loss; c. The limit of liability that applies to Coverage C, if applicable; d. Any applicable special limits of liability stated in this policy; or e. For loss to any item described in A.2.a.- f. above, the limit of liability that applies to the item. 2. We will settle the loss as follows: a. If the “residence premises” is not a mobile home, we will settle the loss as noted in Paragraph C.1. above whether or not actual repair or replacement is complete. b. If the “residence premises” is a mobile home, paragraphs b.(1) and b.(2) below are made a part of this policy: (1)If the cost to repair or replace the property described in A. above is more than $500, we will pay no more than the actual cash value of the loss until the actual repair or replacement is complete. (2)You may make a claim for loss on an actual cash value basis and then make claim for any additional liability in accordance with this endorsement provided you notify us of your intent to do so within 180 days after the date of loss. All other provisions of this policy apply
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

This Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation (hereinafter “CRN”) is being submitted on behalf of Evelyn Schaible (hereinafter the "Insured") as against her insurance company, Homeowner’s Choice Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Inc. As of the submission of this CRN, and as shall be demonstrated in further detail below, the insurance company has violated multiple bad-faith statutes by not attempting, in good faith, to settle the insured’s claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly towards the insured and with due regard for their interests. The commission of these violations has been known to Homeowner’s Choice dating back to at least October of 2022 and even now, with the information known to Homeowner’s Choice, instead of immediately seeking to cure these violations, instead continues to draw out litigation and take unnecessary discovery in a drawn-out legal battle to the detriment of its Insured. The specific facts are as follows: Evelyn Schaible (the "Insured") purchased an insurance policy ("Policy") from Homeowner’s Choice Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Inc. ("Homeowner’s Choice"), with effective coverage on the date of the loss, on or about September 28, 2022, and policy number HCPC-HW2-441578-9 to insure her home located at 100 Bocilla Drive, Placida, Florida 33946 (the "Property"). On or about September 28, 2022, the aforementioned Property suffered severe damage as the result of the devastating Hurricane Ian, which caused damages to the Property, including but not limited to the exterior and interior of the property. The Insured promptly reported their claim to Homeowner’s Choice. Homeowner’s Choice acknowledged receipt of the claim by generating claim number 925101. Homeowner's Choice performed a woefully inadequate adjustment of the Insured's claim, retaining out of state adjusters from various third party administrators, including Wardlaw Claims and Griston Claims. The adjustment of the Insured's claim is representative of a number of other, similar claims in and around the west coast of Florida, including Lee, Charlotte, and Collier counties. Homeowner's Choice performed three rushed, incomplete inspections on 10/12/22, 11/23/22, and over a year later on 11/9/23, by third party hired adjusters respectively identified as Chase McCauley, Josh Lodwick, and Kai Guliksen. On each of these three inspections, new damage that had existed since the passage of Hurricane Ian were identified, resulting in 2 estimates of damage for the Property pursuant to Coverage A of the Policy. The initial estimate purports to be authored by Josh Lodwick; however, Mr. Lodwick solely included one line-item to the initial estimate. To date, Homeowner's Choice has attempted to veil or conceal the true author of the initial estimate. Subsequently, upon inspection by Kai Guliksen, Homeowner's Choice prepared it's second estimate, now over 1 year removed from the hurricane, purported to be prepared by Daisy Princesa, one of the claims examiners involved with the Insured's claim but who had never inspected the Property. This second estimate failed to fully indemnify the Insured for her sustained damage and only adjusted for Coverage A of the Policy. In the time that the claim was pending, the Insured made repeated efforts to communicate and submit documents for Homeowner's Choice to evaluate and consider in the adjustment of this loss. This included providing Homeowner's Choice with information about the unique access issue of this Property, located on an island area only accessible by ferry. In addition, the Insured submitted documentation pertaining to repairs, as well as contractor estimates, and other information attempting to communicate to her insurance company that the value of the loss was far greater than the estimate(s) from Homeowner's Choice. The Insured verbally communicated on repeated instances with claims examiner Christopher Barnett and Daisy Princesa, among others, in an effort to supply documentation for her repairs. The Insured provided information to Mr. Barnett and Homeowner's Choice (or its agents) communicating the commencement of repairs, the dangerous conditions and received no response. The Insured's efforts and communications span from April 2023 through approximately October 2023 when she was finally forced to retain the services of Capital Claims, a public adjuster, to assist her in efforts to get responses. Once the public adjuster was involved, it appears Homeowner's Choice realized that the Insured had representation and could not be misled and thus advised it would perform a re-inspection, a year after the storm and after repairs had taken place necessary to restore and protect the Property. The Insured, through her representative, provided a line-item detailed breakdown of the areas of damage, as well as documenting the incurred costs of repairs. Homeowner's Choice ultimately did not provide any meaningful response to these submissions and simply relied upon the supplemental estimate prepared by Daisy Princesa. Not once has Homeowner's Choice given consideration to Loss of Use, Mold, Contents, and failed to properly account for repair records and other documents supporting the Insured's claim The Insured additionally supplied numerous, detailed personal property inventory forms applicable to Coverage C of her Policy for numerous personal items and property damaged from Hurricane Ian. Upon information and belief, Homeowner's Choice, despite assuming risk of the Insured's Property as well as countless other Floridians, was unable and unequipped to manage and adjust the numerous hurricane Ian claims it received following September 2022. Indeed, it is believed that Homeowner's Choice undertook a systematic approach to avoid liability and skirt its indemnification obligations by continuously representing in letters that its payments and coverage determinations were not final. Yet here, as evidenced by the efforts of the Insured, all of her submissions to Homeowner's Choice to have the claim supplemented were ignored. Homeowner's Choice to date has not once provided a coverage determination as to the Insured's Personal Property claim submission - this means there were not only no payment but no explanation of a coverage position whatsoever, despite receiving multiple inventory forms with notations, claim information, and photographs/receipts. Upon information and belief known to counsel for the Insured, Homeowner's Choice has a widespread of failing to pay contents coverage to Hurricane Ian victims who duly purchased said coverage. Moreover, Homeowner's Choice failed to release recoverable depreciation, although the valuation of this was also improper and done with a view toward minimizing its own liability by applying depreciation incorrectly and to non-depreciable items. In addition, the Insured, concerned about the impact on her health, tested for mold and supplied this documentation to Homeowners Choice as well. Again, this was ignored and otherwise not responded to by operation of a coverage decision, supplemental determination and/or payment. Due to the delays, mismanagement, failure to acknowledge or respond, and other failures of Homeowner's Choice, the Insured sustained considerable damage beyond that caused by Hurricane Ian to her Property, including being subjected to dangerous conditions such as mold, being forced to find alternative quarters out of pocket, prematurely cashing out investments in order to effectuate necessary repairs, and missed work as a Pharmacist. The extensive travel and logistics to perform needed work forced her to incur barge and travel fees as well and the considerable stress of the aftermath of the storm and Homeowner's Choice's conduct has impacted her mental health and stability. Homeowner’s Choice was woefully understaffed and under equipped to handle the processing of claims such as that of the Insureds following Hurricane Ian. The facts as alleged herein are known to have occurred on a wide-scale basis to many Homeowner’s Choice insureds in and around the West Coast of Florida. The Property sustained damage that is attributed to the insurance company’s lacking investigation, low-ball evaluation of damage, and delay in timely processing the claim, including moisture and mold damage that pose a threat to the health and safety of the Insured. The Insured in fact asked about what repairs were needed to be done based on the complex and complicated insurance estimate(s) prepared using industry-accepted Xactimate software. In fact, the Insured asked the insurance company about specific line-item breakdowns to properly determine what steps should be taken only to be told this is confidential information. Homeowner’s Choice’s blatantly insufficient coverage decision has resulted in further damages to the Insured by preventing them from returning their Property to its pre-loss condition, rather than participating in the settlement process in good faith. As a direct consequence of Homeowner’s Choice’s failure to adjust this loss in good faith and pay what it owed under the policy, the Insured IS continuing to sustain considerable hardship. Homeowner’s Choice continues to this day to engage in bad faith and is aware of the fact that their own agent admits to there being covered damage that Homeowner Choice is unwilling to pay for. Homeowner’s Choice has violated Florida Statute § 624.155(1)(b)(1) by continuously not attempting in good faith to settle this claim when it should have done so if it had acted fairly and honestly towards its Insured. Homeowner’s Choice has also violated Florida Statute § 624.155(1)(b)(3) by failing to promptly settle this obviously covered claim to influence settlement in its favor. Despite being presented all of the indisputable evidence of the amount of damage sustained by this Property, it is a disgrace that the Insured have been treated in this manner by their insurance company after sustaining an obviously covered loss, submitting to every demand of Homeowner’s Choice, and making a good faith effort to resolve in an attempt to amicably come to a fair resolution. Homeowner’s Choice violated Florida Statutes § 626.9541(1)(i)(2) and § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) by making material misrepresentations to the Insured for the purpose and with the intent to settle the claim on less favorable terms than those provided and contemplated by the policy. While Homeowner’s Choice was made aware, and even admits to knowing, of this information for the purpose of obtaining the money contractually owed to the Insured, Homeowner’s Choice wantonly disregards these facts, knowing all too well the additional damage and hardship that is being placed on the Insured by its actions. Homeowner’s Choice violated § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) when it failed to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigations of claims. Under no circumstances is there an excuse for the lack of care and utter disregard for the investigations in this case. Homeowner’s Choice and their representatives are willfully blind and grossly underqualified to handle a loss such as the one sustained by the Insured. In addition, after being placed on notice as to the blatant underpayment of the Insured’ claim, Homeowner’s Choice has yet to rectify their actions and do right by the Insured by paying the money they are contractually owed. There still has yet to be significant action taken by Homeowner’s Choice to this date, despite Homeowner’s Choice being presented with the incongruencies in their farcical rationale for underpaying the Insureds. As demonstrated above, Homeowner’s Choice has known of covered damage it did not pay or properly adjust, resolving to pay only a fraction of covered loss. The Insured has undergone considerable stress that has impacted her health as a consequence of the ensuing events following Hurricane Ian and Homeowner’s Choice’s failure to properly and appropriately adjust the claim. The Insured was diagnosed with Spasmotic Dysphonia that was diagnosed by Dr Victoria Gau at Sarasota Memorial Hospital and undergoes voice therapy. She has additionally had to cash out investments prematurely in order to absorb the cost of the loss. Homeowner’s Choice violated § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g) by failing to promptly notify the Insured of any additional information necessary for processing the claim. The Insured have more than complied with each and every request and there has still been no action by Homeowner’s Choice. In the event Homeowner’s Choice is in need of additional information, they have failed to promptly notify the Insured in a timely manner. This pattern of behavior is perpetuated by Homeowner’s Choice and their representatives undeterred by the Ethical Requirements that are imposed by law on all Adjusters. Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. (3) explicitly states the adjustment of insurance claims engage the trust of the public, and therefore, an adjuster has a duty of fair and honest treatment of the Insured throughout the insurance claim process. Several duties and responsibilities to the Insured were violated in the handling of this claim, which are specifically listed responsibilities of an Adjuster in the Florida Administrative Code. These breached duties and responsibilities include adjusters from Homeowner’s Choice approaching the investigation and settlement in a manner prejudicial to the Insured, failing to allow a fair settlement with the Insured, and acting with due diligence in achieving a proper disposition of the claim. In contrast to the legislative intent motivating the enumeration of an Adjuster’s responsibilities outlined in the Administrative Code, the Insured were not afforded the professional duties entrusted on Homeowner’s Choice by the public. To date, Homeowner’s Choice has failed to adequately compensate the Insured for the damage that occurred on September 28, 2022. As a direct result of Homeowner’s Choice’s delay, the Insured were forced to seek the help of legal counsel to assist them. Due to the amount of time that has passed since the date of loss, this acknowledgement is evidence that Homeowner’s Choice knowingly and intentionally are delaying the claims process in order to further disadvantage the Insured. The financial detriment caused to the Insured is a direct result of Homeowner’s Choice’s reckless delay of the claim process. The Insured are dutiful customers who made it a priority to pay their insurance premiums to ensure that in such an event as this devastating incident, their home would be covered. The Insured timely filed their claim and fulfilled all of their post-loss obligations. All requested information and documentation has been turned over to Homeowner’s Choice and their representatives promptly by the Insured. However, Homeowner’s Choice failed at every step of the process to adequately establish or identify the basis of its gross mismanagement of the claim, failed to inform the Insured how they may remedy any deficiencies in their claim, and failed to provide them with qualified representatives to ensure the claim was initially adjusted, evaluated, and estimated properly. To deny the Insured the benefit of their bargain after they satisfied all of their obligations is morally and ethically reprehensible. Upon belief, the aforementioned actions complained of, among others, were made by Homeowner’s Choice so often as to constitute a general business practice, evidencing a motive to enhance Homeowner’s Choice’s profits, and designed to cause a detrimental effect to its policy holders. Homeowner’s Choice was aware that the Insured’ damages were covered and took advantage of its Insured in an attempt to force them into an irreparably disadvantaged position, which they hope will force the Insured to settle for less coverage than they are contractually entitled to under the policy. The facts and circumstances set forth herein confirm Homeowner’s Choice 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)(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. This notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, should Homeowner’s Choice fail to cure the violations set forth in this Civil Remedy Notice within the given cure period. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, Homeowner’s Choice must: 1. Immediately tender the policy benefits after offset of prior payments for Coverage A in the amount of $800,000, as well as the policy liability for C of $166,287.63, and for Loss of Use Cov. D in the amount of $57,210. 2. Agree to reimburse the Insured’ reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for having to become involved to resolve the claim; 3. Although the Insured have made a demand herein and have previously provided Homeowner’s Choice with all the necessary estimates, invoices, receipts, etc. in support thereof, the Insured is still willing to consider and to potentially accept any reasonable counter-offer made by Homeowner’s Choice.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
mlavisky@butlerpappas.com 07-18-2025 The comment to the CRN on May 20, 2025 is not a valid, separate CRN as it is not in the format required by the Department of Financial Services, as required by Fla. Stat. 624.155(3). In any event, the parties have resolved this matter so the CRN is moot and "cured."
rs@weklaw.com 05-20-2025 This Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation (hereinafter “CRN”) is being submitted on behalf of Evelyn Schaible (hereinafter the "Insured") as against her insurance company, Homeowner’s Choice Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Inc. (hereinafter “HCPCI”). The Insured submits this CRN in response to the response made by Homeowner’s Choice Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Inc. on May 19, 2025. First, there are several statements in HCPCI’s CRN response that are demonstrably false. The Insured’s CRN specifically identifies Christopher Barnett and Daisy Princesa along with HCPCI as a whole as those whose conduct constituted a violation of the statutory provisions asserted in the CRN. Second, contrary to HCPCI’s CRN response, HCPCI’s testimony confirms that as to the Irma claim, the only interior damage HCPCI determined to be overlapping from a prior claim (which has been refuted by the Insured) was as to the living room, not the other rooms listed under Part A of the response. HCPCI references Joshua Lodwick and states he prepared an “estimate in the amount of $44,499.93 for: ridge cap repair, guard rail, pool enclosure rescreen, siding, soffit, window screen, lattice work, living room, kitchen, dining room, bedroom, entry foyer, master bedroom, master bathroom, foyer, and bedroom.” This is wholly refuted by Mr. Lodwick’s sworn testimony that he ONLY prepared one single line-item concerning the roof. HCPCI references Kai Gulliksen in its CRN response and states: “After reviewing the 2017 prior Hurricane Irma claim (number 879245), Gulliksen noted that there is overlapping damage in: foyer, kitchen, dining room, living room, family room, stairs, and upstairs guest bedroom. Notably, exterior repairs were completed prior to re-inspection.” HCPCI fails to note that Gulliksen did not inspect until the Insured retained a public adjuster and after performing exterior repairs as contemplated by HCPCI’s first estimate. In fact, Mr. Gulliksen did not inspect the property until over a year after Hurricane Ian and testified he was not tasked with making any specific causation or coverage determination. HCPCI again, in an effort to cover up its bad faith conduct uses the guise of work product privilege as its sword and shield as to whether Gulliksen even ever prepared an estimate from his inspection, given that no estimate from HCPCI concerning this loss shows Gulliksen to be the author or preparer. Next, HCPCI’s conduct reveals that it enlisted a mold company to evaluate the Insured’s property for mold and determined the existence of mold. However, at no point did HCPCI share this information with the Insured, provide the report of findings (from AirMD). The Insured repeatedly expressed concern to HCPCI about mold, visibly evident on the home and her contents but HCPCI never shared their findings, nor extended mold coverage for this aspect of her loss at any time during the claim process. The Insured was left for months with no information about mold and had to undertake her own remedial measures after not receiving a response from HCPCI. The proliferation of mold and the withholding of this critical information to the Insured not only clearly and egregiously demonstrates HCPCI’s bad-faith handling of the claim but resulted in health impacts to the Insured and occupants of the home. The policy in issue carries mold coverage (see form HCPC WO HO 02 11 14 (page 9 or 19). Further, based on the dates alone, it is clear that HCPCI received mold findings AFTER it made its initial coverage determination letter in December 2022 but never once supplemented the claim with letter or additional payment upon receipt of the AirMD report. Instead of addressing this, HCPCI undertook to double down on their conduct by pointing the finger at the Insured to attempt to argue she failed to mitigate damage – again, something wholly refutable by the record evidence gathered to date. Next, HCPCI confirmed through its deposition testimony to never issuing any requests for information or additional support records from the Insured or, ultimately, her public adjuster. Instead, HCPCI weaponized its proof of loss provisions as a means to find a way to exclude any further coverage due and owing the insured. The Insured submitted incurred expense records that HCPCI never considered or paid. HCPCI never issued recoverable depreciation. HCPCI acknowledged receipt of numerous personal property inventory forms concerning the Contents Coverage available pursuant to the Personal Property Replacement Cost Loss Settlement provision found at Form HCPC HO 04 90 11 14 Page 1 of 1. No where in HCPCI’s CRN response does it provide a response as to the Loss of Use and Contents Coverage claimed by the Insured and has no letters or other claim communications to reflect a coverage determination as to these coverages available under the policy. The silence in HCPCI’s response to the CRN as to mold, contents, loss of use, and proper supplementing or releasing of additional monies for what WAS covered, is deafening and a clear demonstration of HCPCI’s bad-faith conduct and handling of the Insured’s loss. HCPCI breached its duties and obligations to the Insured well before she retained a public adjuster and only did so after multiple submissions of documents, records, photographs, invoices, estimates and other information concerning her loss that went un-responded. For the sake of being crystal clear, the facts and information supporting the statutory violations within the CRN are, indeed, contained within the original CRN as well as this response. 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. HCPCI knows there is Contents coverage and failed to issue any coverage determination as to same. The same applies as to mold, debris removal, and Loss of Use coverage. HCPCI was submitted information and records supporting these coverages that was completely dismissed, ignored, or missed and this is believed to be a patter of business. 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. Moreover, in response to the Insured’s contesting the supplemental payment made by HCPCI in December 2023, Daisy Princesa responded with a settlement offer contingent on executing a release. This was done in a measure to attempt, in bad faith, to strong arm a settlement of a highly disputed claim in exchange for a release when HCPCI had not first fully indemnified the loss. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. It is clear that HCPCI did not process, consider, or evaluate the hundreds of fax, email, and phone communications of records in support of the Insured’s loss. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. HCPCI instead of acting honestly and acknowledging it failed to property handle the claim, instead attempts to now misrepresent facts concerning showing damaged contents and placing blame on the insured concerning mold growth when HCPCI has had information concerning these claims from the outset. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. Multiple submissions were never responded to by HCPCI including Invoice from Architectural Millwork in the amount of $19,345.60. Email dated April 11, 2023 with receipts and checks reflecting “attached initial Ian receipts” Email dated July 17, 2023 enclosing repair records/invoices for windows and doors. Email dated July 25, 2023 providing information as to discovered damage to firebox submitted by Plaintiff to Defendant with no acknowledgment or response. Email dated September 28, 2023 enclosing Invoice from Architectural Millwork in the amount of $265,521.28 for exterior repairs to date. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information. HCPCI can cite to no letter explaining the lack of payment or denial of any of the information it revealed in this claim, including as to the building structure, mold, contents, or loss of use. Those who inspected the property for HCPCI never evaluated anything besides the building itself. 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. Same as above and based on all information submitted herein and via the original CRN. 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. The only denial language found anywhere concerning this claim from HCPCI is as to an area of the interior from Hurricane Irma via its original December 2022 coverage letter. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g) Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim. As stated previously, HCPCI confirmed no request for information was sought. 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. -- As stated previously. The Insured incorporates its prior CRN as well as its Motions for Summary Judgment filed in the underlying coverage dispute lawsuit in support of this submission. This notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, should Homeowner’s Choice fail to cure the violations set forth in this Civil Remedy Notice within the given cure period. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, Homeowner’s Choice must: 1. Immediately tender the policy benefits after offset of prior payments for Coverage A in the amount of $800,000, as well as the policy liability for C of $166,287.63, and for Loss of Use Cov. D in the amount of $57,210. 2. Agree to reimburse the Insured’ reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for having to become involved to resolve the claim pursuant to applicable Florida law; 3. Although the Insured have made a demand herein and have previously provided Homeowner’s Choice with all the necessary estimates, invoices, receipts, etc. in support thereof, the Insured is still willing to consider and to potentially accept any reasonable counter-offer made by Homeowner’s Choice.
lscott@butler.legal 05-19-2025 May 19, 2025 (Via Electronic Filing) Florida Department of Financial Services Bureau of Consumer Assist. Civil Remedy Larson Building, 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399 0322 (via E-Mail) Ruwan Sugathapala, Esq. 800 East Broward Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Rs@Weklaw.Com Re: Insured: Evelyn Schaible Claim Number: 925101-01 Policy Number: HCPC-HW2-441578-9 Date of Loss: September 28, 2022 DFS Filing No. 812069 RESPONSE TO CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE To Whom It May Concern: This is Homeowners Choice Property & Casualty Insurance Company’s (“Homeowners Choice”) response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (“CRN” or “notice”) filed on behalf of Evelyn Schaible (“Schaible” or “the insured)”) by attorney Ruwan Sugathapala as it relates to claim number 925101. The following response was uploaded to the Department of Financial Services (“DFS”). At the outset, Homeowners Choice denies all allegations listed in the CRN. Homeowners Choice asserts all, and does not waive any, defects in the CRN by filing this response. Although the CRN is invalid, Homeowners Choice denies the allegations in the CRN. Second, the CRN is invalid because it alleges violations of numerous statutes without providing facts to support that the statute was violated. Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). This is contrary to the purpose of the statute. Third, the notice fails to identify with specificity the persons alleged to have been involved in the violation. Fourth, the notice fails to state specifically the policy provisions allegedly violated. Although the notice is invalid, Homeowners Choice denies the allegations in the notice. Homeowners Choice hereby asserts all, and does not waive any, defects in the civil remedy notice by filing this response. A. Prior Loss – Hurricane Irma September 10, 2017. There is a prior loss with Hurricane Irma - claim number 879245. There is overlapping damage with this Hurricane Ian claim. Homeowners Choice wrote a $29,126.64 (RCV) and $27,156.35 (ACV) estimate for repairs to: Roof, Exterior: right elevation, front elevation, left elevation; Interior: foyer, stairs1, kitchen, closet1, dining room, bay1, living room, daughter’s bedroom, and contents. B. Investigation of the Current Loss – Hurricane Ian September 28, 2022. This lawsuit is a claim for damages allegedly caused by Hurricane Ian. The claim was reported by the insured for Hurricane Ian. Ms. Schaible alleges the hurricane caused damage to the exterior, interior, and other structures such as the fence and gazebo. Homeowners Choice sent Josh Lodwick, a field adjuster, to inspect the property. Mr. Lodwick wrote an estimate in the amount of $44,499.93 for: ridge cap repair, guard rail, pool enclosure rescreen, siding, soffit, window screen, lattice work, living room, kitchen, dining room, bedroom, entry foyer, master bedroom, master bathroom, foyer, and bedroom. Ms. Schaible retained Architectural Millwork, and it submitted an estimate for $265,521.28, which includes: drywall under house, roof repair, deck repair, windows, and doors, clean up, and lattice repair. There is also a bill for septic, electrical, stairs, fence, pavers, pool, palms, siding, fireplace, gazebo, lattice, and fireplace. On November 9, 2023, Homeowners Choice sent Kai Gulliksen to conduct a re-inspection of the property. Capital Claims was present. There was no wind damage to the roof or the exterior. However, there was water damage to multiple rooms. Gulliksen noted that some of the damage could have been from the 2017 prior loss with Hurricane Irma. After reviewing the 2017 prior Hurricane Irma claim (number 879245), Gulliksen noted that there is overlapping damage in: foyer, kitchen, dining room, living room, family room, stairs, and upstairs guest bedroom. Notably, exterior repairs were completed prior to re-inspection. Concerning the Hurricane Ian claim, Homeowners Choice prepared an estimate for $81,211.10 (RCV) and $74,639.54 (ACV) to repair: siding, soffit, 7 windows on left elevation, stair repair, guest bedroom, and master bedroom. Ms. Schaible retained a public adjuster who submitted an inflated estimate in the amount of $1,018,371.65. A breakdown of the public adjuster estimate includes: a full roof replacement, deck, fence, gazebo, chimney, electrical windows, doors, siding, lattice work, septic, pool, pack out, contents, loss of use (ALE), general supervision, storage, and clean up. All interior rooms will have ceiling, floors, and wall repairs, as well as cabinets and vanities in bathrooms and kitchens. There is also a Rental Agreement for ALE for $11,000.00 from November 2022 to February 23, 2023, and $14,688.00 for 3 months from February 2023 to April 2023 for a total of $25,688.00 for ALE. The public adjuster is not a professional engineer; and, the estimate is inflated. Therefore, Homeowners Choice correctly denied the claim. Though Homeowners Choice does not agree with public adjuster’s estimate, Homeowners Choice thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigated the loss. Homeowners Choice, at all times, acted in good faith toward Ms. Schaible. Homeowners Choice denies that it has done anything improper regarding this claim. Homeowners Choice conducted the appropriate evaluations and promptly issued its decision regarding the denial of coverage for this claim. Homeowners Choice attempted to settle the claim with the public adjuster, but was unsuccessful. If you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact us. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, BUTLER WEIHMULLER KATZ CRAIG LLP /s/Matthew J. Lavisky Matthew J. Lavisky, Esq. mlavisky@butler.legal Latasha Scott lscott@butler.legal
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