Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     812169
Filing Accepted:  3/20/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
GULF COAST REHABILITATION CENTER, INC. (“GCRC”) AND 1937 JENKS, LLC   First Name  
Street Address * 1819 WEAKFISH WAY
City, State Zip * PANAMA CITY BEACH, FL 32408
Email Address * TLD@BEGGSLANE.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   GULF COAST REHABILITATION CENTER, INC. (“GCRC”) THROUGH 1937 JENKS, LLC   First Name  
Policy # * AMR-58799-01 Claim #* 4156990
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* DIDIER First Name * TERRIE Initial L
Street Address* 501 COMMENDENCIA ST.
City, State Zip* PENSACOLA , FLORIDA 32502
Email Address * TLD@BEGGSLANE.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):* SEDGWICK AND MKA
Type of Insurance * Commercial Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
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.
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.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

SPECIFIC POLICY LANGUAGE THAT IS RELEVANT TO THE VIOLATION [Search terms: Insurable Interest – Valuation – Additional Insureds – Demolition & Increased Cost of Construction – Land improvements] I. Declarations A. The Insured LaVie Care Centers LLC DBA Consulate Health care . . . and any other party or interest that the Insured is required by contract or agreement to insure; all hereafter referred to as the “Insured.” [Consulate was required by contract/lease agreement with GCRC to insure it for the loss GCRC sustained by Hurricane Michael. GCRC was required by contract/lease agreement with 1937 Jenks LLC to insure the property for the loss sustained by Hurricane Michael.] D. Limits of Liability In the event of loss or damage insured under this policy, this Insurer shall be liable for its proportional share of $200,000,000 per Occurrence, and its proportional share of the following program per Occurrence and/or policy year Annual Aggregate sublimits of liability excess of policy deductibles. [and listed sublimits, including:] $ 500,000 Claim Preparation Expenses [as defined at VIII, Extensions of Coverage, ¶G, p. 35 of the Policy] $ 5,000,000 Consequential Loss [as defined at III., Property Insured, ¶B.9., p. 15 of the Policy] $ 500,000 Contamination cleanup [as defined at III, Property Insured, ¶B.2., p. 14 of the Policy] $ 5,000,000 Debris Removal and Cost of Cleanup or 25% o the …., whichever is greater [as defined at III., Property Insured, ¶B.1, p. 13 of the Policy] $25,000,000 Demolition & Increased Cost of Construction [as defined at III., Property Insured, ¶B.15, p.16 of the Policy] $ 1,000,000 Land Improvements [as defined at V., Definitions, p. 43 of the Policy] $ 5,000,000 Rental Value [as defined at V, Time Element, ¶C., p. 21 of the Policy] III. Property Insured Except as hereinafter excluded, this Policy insures: A. The insurable interest of the Insured in all real and personal property of every kind and description . . . within the Policy territory . . . . B. Additional Coverages 1. Debris Removal and Cost of Clean Up Notwithstanding the provisions of any exclusion contained herein . . ., in the event of physical loss, damage or destruction or property insured by a peril insured by this Policy, this Policy . . . insures: a. … and/or b. . . . . 2. Contamination Cleanup Notwithstanding anything in this Policy to the contrary, this Policy insures costs …. 9. Consequential Loss This Policy Insures: a. Physical loss, damage or destruction of property insured resulting from physical loss, damage or destruction of other property insured at the same “location” by a peril insured by this Policy. b. The reduction in value of undamaged insured articles that are …. 15. Demolition and Increased Cost of Construction In the event of insured loss or damage insured under this policy that causes the enforcement of any law, ordinance and/or governmental directive …. V. Definitions Land Improvements: Any alteration to the natural condition of the land at a ‘location’ by grading, landscaping and additions to such land including landscape gardening, pavements, roadways, or similar works, and including the cost of reclaiming, restoring or repairing “land improvements.” VII. Valuation The value of property shall be determined as follows: A. With respect to all property insured . . ., the payment for loss shall be on a ‘replacement cost’ basis. “Replacement cost’ includes . . . . B. If, as a result of physical loss, damage or destruction insured by this Policy reconstruction, restoration, repair or use of property insured is regulated or prohibited by the enforcement of any law, ordinance, or regulation which is in force at the time of the physical loss, damage or destruction, this Policy shall pay for ‘demolition and increased cost of construction’ meaning: . . . . VIII. Extensions of Coverage This Policy insures: G. Claim Preparation Expenses Expenses incurred by the Insured or by the Insured’s representatives including Accountants, Appraisers, Architects, Auditors, Consultants, Engineers, or other such professionals in order to arrive at the loss payable under this Policy in the event of a claim. IX. General Conditions K. Additional Insureds, Loss Payees and Mortgage Holders All third parties have an interest in property insured, as required by lease, contract, or agreement, shall automatically be Additional Insureds hereunder. M. Required by Law Any provisions required by law to be included in policies issued by the insurer shall be deemed to have been included in this Policy. If the provisions of this Policy conflict with the laws of any jurisdiction in which this Policy applies, and if certain provisions are required by law to be stated in this Policy, this Policy shall be read so as to eliminate such conflict or deemed to include such provisions for insured “locations” within such jurisdictions. Endorsement 2 Additional Named Insured’s included but are not limited to: Additional Insureds Facility Name 1937 Jenks Avenue Operations LLC Sea Breeze Health Care
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

NARRATIVE FOR CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE [Search Terms: Qualifications – Bid – Projects – False – Delay] The named insured under the policy is LaVie Care Centers LLC, k/n/a 1937 Jenks Operations, LLC, and d/b/a Consulate Health Care (“Consulate”). Gulf Coast Rehabilitation Center, Inc. (“GCRC”) and 1937 Jenks, LLC (“Jenks”) (collectively “Insureds”), pursuant to lease agreements, are additional insureds under policies issued by, among others: (1) AmRisc, LLC, which includes three insurers: (a) Certain Underwriters at Lloyds (Policy No. AMR-58799-01), (b) General Security Indemnity Co. of AZ (Policy No. 10T029659-08022-18-01), and (c) United Specialty Insurance Company (Policy No. USI-21021-01). (2) National Fire & Marine Insurance Company (Policy No. 42-XPR-302506-03). (3) Ironshore Insurance Ltd., n/k/a Liberty Specialty Markets Bermuda Ltd. (Policy No. 443296118A). (4) Oil Casualty Insurance Ltd. (Policy No. 443296118A) (same policy as Ironshore). (5) Evanston Insurance Company (Policy No. MKLV10XP002561). Several other Insurers have settled their portions of the claim. All policies were in effect on October 10, 2018, at the time Hurricane Michael destroyed the property at 1937 Jenks Avenue, Panama City, Florida, operating as Sea Breeze Health Care (the Insured Property). Codes and ordinances applicable to the property required that the building be demolished and rebuilt. Previous Civil Remedy Notices have been filed during the lengthy claim process that has been ongoing since the hurricane in 2018: 438725 (6/7/2019); 438733 (6/7/2019); 438736 (6/7/2019); 438740 (6/7/2019); 438744 (6/7/2019); 476775 (2/10/2020); 475784 (2/10/2020); 475790 (2/10/2020); 475839 (2/10/2020); 475841 (2/10/2020); 475848 (2/10/2020); 803594 (1/27/2025); 803744 (1/27/2025); 803747 (1/27/2025); 803748 (1/27/2025); 803754 (1/27/2025); 803852 (1/28/2025). This Civil Remedy Notice concerns actions/inactions since January 27, 2025, when the latest CRNs were filed. To date, none of the Insurers have corrected the bad faith alleged in the January 27, 2025, CRNs for which the safe harbor period ends March 28, 2025. AmRisc Insurers and National Fire & Marine Insurance Company made certain payments from the date of the loss to March 2023, and entered into an Agreement with the Insureds concerning the future handling of the claim during the rebuilding process. Ironshore, Oil Casualty, and Evanston have been monitoring the progress of the claim through their third-party administrator, Sedgwick, who is the TPA for all Insurers. Ironshore’s and Oil Casualty’s exposures for this claim arise when the total payments to all insureds exceed $25,000,000. Evanston’s exposure with respect to this claim arises when the total payments to all insureds exceed $50,000,000. It is believed that these exposures will be reached based on recent bids received from contractors to rebuild the facility damaged by Hurricane Michael. It is not known to what extent Ironshore, Oil Casualty, and Evanston have had input into the bad faith alleged in this CRN. After the bad faith events outlined in the January 2025 CRNs, Insurers untimely presented Insureds with the qualifications for two contractors—Whitestone Construction and Venue Construction Group LLC—whom they alleged were qualified to perform the rebuild. A deficient nonresponsive bid by Venue created outside and not in compliance with the bid process was presented to Insureds by Insurers. The bid was $12.7M less than the two responsive bids presented within the bid process. Despite this shockingly low bid by Venue as compared to the two compliant and responsive bids, Insurers continued to press use of Venue and refused to accept either of the two bid-process compliant bids as representative of the cost to rebuild. Violation of § 624.155(b)1., Fla. Stat. (2018). Venue presented a revised bid, again outside the approved bidding process, that was still not compliant with the bid-process and significantly lower than the two compliant bids properly obtained by Insureds’ architect from two contractors with significant experience building skilled nursing home facilities. Those two compliant bids from vetted contractors were within $50,000 on a $33,000,000 project, strongly suggesting the bids were in-line with industry standard, and that the Venue bid is not a good faith bid. Reviewing the projects allegedly completed by Whitestone Construction revealed that it did not have any experience building skilled nursing home facilities classified as I-2 by the Florida Building Code and the Agency for Healthcare Administration, which is the type of facility involved in this litigation. Likewise, research into the supposed qualifications of Venue Construction Group LLC exposed that the one nursing home Venue alleged it had built, both in its brochure and on its website, was not, in fact, built by Venue. After Insureds notified Insurers’ counsel of this false claim by Venue, the Venue website was revised to delete the false representation. Notwithstanding knowledge of this intentional misrepresentation by Venue, Insurers still insisted that Venue was qualified to perform the work. The sole reason Insurers are pushing utilization of Venue and refusing to accept the cost determined in the two valid bids is because they do not want to pay the actual cost to rebuild. Violation of §624.155(b)(1), Fla. Stat. (2018). and § 626.9541(1)(i)2., Fla. Stat. (2018). Insureds asked for the correspondence between Venue/Whitestone and the Insurers. Some of that correspondence was produced. However, it appears all of it may not have been produced. The correspondence that was produced revealed that MKA, the Insurers’ contracting expert, in a March 11, 2025, email told Venue how much to include in its bid for Permits, Builder’s Risk, Exterior Envelope Warranty, allowance for Site Retaining Wall, and allowance for Terrazzo flooring. This email is evidence that Venue did not perform a thorough independent investigation of the cost to rebuild. Yet, Insurers continue to allege the Venue bid is a responsive bid. Violation of §624.155(b)(1), Fla. Stat. (2018). and § 626.9541(1)(i)2., Fla. Stat. (2018). Insurers continued bad faith failure to agree to the legitimate and documented cost to rebuild by a qualified and vetted contractor so the construction can begin is causing the cost to escalate significantly. Beyond the cost, the delay is causing hardship for the City of Panama City, who owns the property, because it is not able to provide its residents with needed skilled nursing home accommodations. Violation of §624.155(b)(1)., Fla. Stat. (2018). Insurers can correct their bad faith by agreeing in writing that the architectural plans do not include discretionary upgrades, that the Culpepper Construction bid was a reasonable bid at the time it was presented and agreeing to pay their various participation exposures for that cost along with any cost increases for the forthcoming updated bid associated with the delay caused by Insurers. This is not a settlement offer. Insurers are also responsible for the Policy sublimit related to Land Improvements, the outstanding amount due for business personal property, architectural and engineering fees, bad faith damages, and attorneys’ fees. This notice is being given pursuant to section 624.155(3)(b)5., Florida Statutes, to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by section 624.155.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
tld@beggslane.com 10-19-2025 The parties have resolved their differences related to this CRN.
ccapeles@wshblaw.com 05-19-2025 This is the response of Certain Interested Underwriters at Lloyd's London Subscribing to Policy No. AMR58799-01 ("Underwriters") to the Civil Remedy Notices of Insurer Violations (“CRN”) filed on behalf of Gulf Coast Rehabilitation Center, Inc. and 1937 Jenks, LLC (“Complainant”) and bearing filing number 812169. The acceptance date of the CRN is March 20, 2025. As explained more fully herein, the CRN is facially deficient. To the extent that a response is required, this response is timely. Underwriters respectfully deny all allegations of bad faith, unfair conduct, or violations of Florida Statute § 624.155 or 626.9541, as set forth in the CRN. Accordingly, Underwriters welcome the opportunity to respond to the CRN and specifically deny all allegations that they have acted in bad faith. That said, Underwriters assert that the CRN fails to comply with the specific notice and information requirements as set forth in Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation document provisions, Florida Statute § 624.155, and Florida case law. First, the CRN is facially deficient because it incorrectly states the claim number. Section 624.155(3)(b) provides that “[t]he notice shall be on a form provided by the department.” Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 69J-123.002(1) further specifies that “[t]he civil remedy notice required by section 624.155, F.S. shall be electronically submitted on Form DFS-10-363.” “Accordingly, the five criteria listed in § 624.155 and the additional information requested on Form DFS-10-363 must be stated with specificity.” Pin-Pon Corp. v. Landmark Am. Ins. Co., 500 F. Supp. 3d 1336, 1340 (S.D. Fla. 2020). See also Wopshall v. Travelers Home & Marine Ins. Co., No. 18-14424-CIV, 2021 WL 1247501, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 29, 2021). The failure to accurately identify the claim number renders the CRN invalid on its face. Additionally, the CRN incorrectly identifies Underwriters as an “Authorized Insurer” when Underwriters are non-admitted surplus lines carriers. Form DFS-10-363 requires the specific “Insurer Name.” Failure to name the insurer with precision invalidates the CRN. Sandalwood Estates Homeowner's Ass'n, Inc. v. Empire Indem. Ins. Co., 665 F. Supp.2d 1355 (S.D. Fla. 2009); Lopez v. Geico Casualty Co., 968 F. Supp.2d 1202 (S.D. Fla. 2013). The “Notice Against” section merely names “UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S, LONDON, " which is insufficient. Underwriters reserve all rights on this issue. Second, the CRN fails to identify with specificity the individuals responsible or most knowledgeable of the facts giving rise to the allegations, as required by § 624.155(3)(b). The vague reference to "Sedgwick and MKA" does not satisfy this requirement, as it omits names of representatives, hindering Underwriters' ability to investigate and resolve the allegations. This lack of specificity violates the purpose of the CRN to provide sufficient information for resolution. See Talat Enters., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So.2d 1278, 1283 (Fla. 2000). The CRN alleges that Underwriters engaged in Claim Delay, Unfair Trade Practice and Misrepresentation in violation of §§ 624.155(b)(1) and 626.9541(1)(i)(2). These allegations mischaracterize Underwriters' handling of the claim and lack the requisite factual detail to support statutory violations. As to the facts reportedly supporting the Complainant’s allegations, the CRN alleges that Underwriters' solicitation of comparative bids and failure to accept the Complainant’s preferred bid delayed the rebuild process. These claims are unfounded. Underwriters' obligations are governed by the terms and conditions of the applicable Policy and the Agreement to Resolve the Declaratory Judgment Action (the "Agreement"), executed December 5, 2021. The Agreement does not grant Underwriters authority to control contractor selection or delay the rebuild process. Contrary to the Complainant's claims that Underwriters somehow had any say in what contractor Complainant could accept to rebuild the Subject Property, Underwriters obligations to the Insured are limited to the terms and conditions of the Policy and the Protocol detailed in the Agreement to Resolve the Declaratory Judgment Action (executed on December 5, 2021), through which no such right exists. The Agreement to Resolve the Declaratory Judgment Action states as follows: 1. Subject to the terms, conditions, limitations, exclusions, limits, sublimits, and other provisions of their respective Policies, except as noted otherwise in this Agreement, the Carriers are severally responsible for their proportionate share (i.e. participation percentage) of the coverage available under section 15, Demolition and Increase Cost of Construction. * * * 13. The Parties agree to the establishment of a Protocol for the submission of information to Carriers to support any claim for recovery under Paragraph 1 of this Agreement. The Protocol is attached as Appendix A. * * * APPENDIX A – Protocol * * * Carriers have appointed one building consultant . . . to review the following documents during the rebuild at the Sea Breeze Property until Plaintiffs receive a Certificate of Occupancy: A. Owner / Contractor Agreements (Includes Scope of Work) B. Architectural Drawings/Shop Drawings C. Engineering plans, geotechnical information, surveys or reports prepared in anticipation of or in conjunction with the construction project, or documentation related to environmental concerns at the site. D. Project Manuals (Includes Project Specifications) E. Bill of Quantities F. Work Orders / Purchase Orders G. Contractor / Sub-Contractor Agreements H. Subcontractor Applications for Payment I. (RFP) Request for Proposal Documentation J. Bids received for any aspect of the project * * * Before construction begins, any of the above documents are to be provided as soon as they are available to Plaintiffs with sufficient time for Carriers' Building Consultant to review before contracts and plans are finalized. After construction begins, the above documentation will be provided to the Carriers' Building Consultant, monthly, except that Carriers' Building Consultant will be notified at least seven business days prior to any material, non-emergency changes to the scope of the construction project prior to the changes being undertaken. "Material" changes to the scope of the project include any change that alters the value of the project by $1M or more. The Building Consultant and claims adjuster may make other reasonable requests for information if it is determined to be necessary. If during the review of the information provided it is determined that an accountant is necessary, Carriers may appoint accountant who may also make other reasonable requests for documents as needed. This protocol will be revisited two months following the start of the project and every four months thereafter to determine whether any changes are needed. After each month the production of documents, any follow up requests for information or objections to the documents presented are to be made within 21 days. Under no circumstances will the request for additional documents be allowed to delay progress of the rebuilding. Likewise Plaintiffs failure to timely provide all requested documents will not be permitted to be used as a basis to eliminate or reduce Carriers' time to review the requested documents or carriers right object to any of the work as not covered under the Policies nor should Plaintiffs be permitted to use the monthly cycle for providing documents to be a reason for waiting to notify Carriers of plans regarding the scope of the project. *** In accordance with the Protocol, Complainant was required to submit documentation, including bids, for Underwriters review. However, Underwriters have no authority under the Agreement to prevent Complainant from selecting a contractor and proceeding with the rebuild. The Protocol specifically states: "Under no circumstances will the request for additional documents be allowed to delay progress of the rebuilding." (emphasis added). The Complainant's failure to retain a contractor and advance the rebuild over four years is not attributable to Underwriters. The CRN's allegations regarding bid evaluations, particularly for Venue Construction Group, LLC, misrepresent Underwriters' due diligence in reviewing qualifications and costs to ensure compliance with Policy sublimits, such as the $25,000,000 for Demolition and Increased Cost of Construction. The claim of misrepresentation under §626.9541(1)(i)(2) is baseless, as the CRN fails to show Underwriters made any material misrepresentation to Complainant. The CRN concludes as follows: "Insurers can correct their bad faith by agreeing in writing that the architectural plans do not include discretionary upgrades, that the Culpepper Construction bid was a reasonable bid at the time it was presented and agreeing to pay their various participation exposures for that cost along with any cost increases for the forthcoming updated bid associated with the delay caused by Insurers. This is not a settlement offer. Insurers are also responsible for the Policy sublimit related to Land Improvements, the outstanding amount due for business personal property, architectural and engineering fees, bad faith damages, and attorneys fees." The cure demand is vague, inconsistent, and exceeds Underwriters' obligations under the Policy and Agreement. It fails to specify a clear cure amount, including the Policy's deductible, denying Underwriters a reasonably opportunity to cure the alleged violations. See Talat Enters., 753 So. 2d at 1283 (requiring specific cure demand). This renders the CRN legally deficient. As set forth herein, Underwriters have acted fairly and properly towards the Complainant. Underwriters maintain that they have complied with all applicable statutory and contractual obligations. We trust that this response fully addresses the allegations in the CRN. Should you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact us at your convenience.
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