Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     812299
Filing Accepted:  3/21/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
NEW BEGINNING MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH   First Name  
Street Address * 2125-2183 NW 155TH ST.
City, State Zip * OPA LOCKA, FL 33054
Email Address * EDREADON1@ICLOUD.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   NEW BEGINNING MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH   First Name   JUAN
Policy # * 350OR116848 Claim #* C24430620
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* CAMPOS First Name * JUAN Initial D.
Street Address* 790 NW 107TH AVE, SUITE 304
City, State Zip* MIAMI , FL 33172
Email Address * JUAN@SASIETALAW.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):* N/A
Type of Insurance * Commercial Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
Unfair Trade Practice
* Statutory provision(s) which the insurer allegedly violated.
 
624.155(1)(b)(1) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
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.

1. Building and Personal Property Coverage Form (CP 00 10 10 12) Loss Payment: "We will give notice of our intentions within 30 days after we receive the sworn proof of loss. [...] We will pay for covered loss or damage within 30 days after we receive the sworn proof of loss, provided you have complied with all of the terms of this coverage part, and (1) we have reached agreement with you on the amount of loss, or (2) an appraisal award has been made." 2. Duties In The Event Of Loss or Damage: "You must see that the following are done in the event of loss or damage to Covered Property: (1) Notify the police if a law may have been broken. (2) Give us prompt notice of the loss or damage. Include a description of the property involved. (3) As soon as possible, give us a description of how, when and where the loss or damage occurred. (4) Take all reasonable steps to protect the Covered Property from further damage, and keep a record of your expenses necessary to protect the Covered Property for consideration in the settlement of the claim. (5) At our request, give us complete inventories of the damaged and undamaged property. Include quantities, costs, values and amount of loss claimed. (6) As often as may be reasonably required, permit us to inspect the property proving the loss or damage and examine your books and records. (7) Also permit us to take samples of damaged and undamaged property for inspection, testing and analysis, and permit us to make copies from your books and records. (8) Send us a signed, sworn proof of loss containing the information we request to investigate the claim. You must do this within 60 days after our request. We will supply you with the necessary forms. (9) Cooperate with us in the investigation or settlement of the claim."
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

On October 6, 2024, the insured property, New Beginning Missionary Baptist Church, sustained extensive contents damage due to vandalism and arson, significantly affecting the church’s ability to serve its congregation and the local community. This property specifically served as a place of worship, community outreach, and support, making its rapid restoration critically important. The loss was promptly reported to the insurer, Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, and desk adjuster Rick Honeycutt (Davies Group) was assigned to handle the claim. Despite full cooperation from the insured, Lloyd’s exhibited a consistent pattern of delay, non-responsiveness, and failure to timely communicate regarding the status of its investigation. A field inspection took place on October 29, 2024, attended by both Lloyd’s adjuster and the insured’s representatives. Following this inspection, Lloyd’s failed to timely communicate a coverage determination or request any additional documents necessary for concluding its investigation. Due to Lloyd’s ongoing lack of communication, the insured’s attorney initiated multiple attempts to obtain clarity on the claim status via emails sent between October 2024 and December 2024, repeatedly requesting updates or a determination on coverage. Lloyd's continuously failed to respond or provide meaningful updates, leaving the insured unable to move forward with critical repairs and replacements. As a result of this prolonged silence and delay from Lloyd's, on December 10, 2024, the insured, through counsel, proactively sent Lloyd’s a formal Notice of Delayed Coverage Determination, explicitly asking Lloyd’s to identify specifically what additional documentation or information was required to complete the investigation. Lloyd’s again failed to respond or provide the requested clarification. Given Lloyd’s repeated failures and statutory delays, the insured was forced to issue a proper and timely Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation (NOI) on December 18, 2024, under the statutory provisions governing property insurance claims. Lloyd’s improperly responded to this NOI by requesting an Examination Under Oath (EUO), and later, on December 31, 2024, incorrectly asserted in writing that the NOI was premature. In fact, the NOI was timely and legally justified due to Lloyd’s continued noncompliance and persistent failure to communicate clearly or to finalize its investigation within statutory deadlines. On February 3, 2025, the insured fully cooperated and complied with the requested EUO, providing all necessary testimony. Instead of promptly resolving the claim after the EUO, Lloyd’s further delayed the matter by issuing yet another extensive post-EUO document request on February 6, 2025, much of which was duplicative or had already been provided previously, evidencing a further improper attempt to extend the claim process unnecessarily. Importantly, Lloyd’s never requested a Sworn Proof of Loss at any stage, a critical step clearly outlined in the policy conditions that Lloyd’s could have undertaken if genuinely necessary to complete their investigation timely. Lloyd’s failure to invoke this basic policy provision further demonstrates its improper handling and intentional delay tactics. Lloyd’s actions have directly harmed not only the insured church but also the broader community, significantly impairing essential religious services, outreach activities, and community support programs offered by the church. This deliberate delay continues to negatively affect countless individuals who rely upon this institution for both spiritual and practical support. Lloyd’s failures explicitly violate the terms of the policy—particularly the obligations to timely communicate, promptly investigate, and issue payment for a clearly covered loss. Moreover, Lloyd’s conduct constitutes clear violations of Florida Statutes governing fair claims practices, causing undue hardship and prejudice to the insured and the wider community. To cure their unfair practices, Lloyd’s must: Complete their investigation and formally issue a coverage determination acknowledging full coverage for the insured’s contents claim. Promptly issue payment for the full amount of damages claimed ($249,752.05), plus applicable interest, attorney fees, and costs. Cease all unreasonable delay tactics and unnecessary document requests, and fully comply with their obligations under both Florida Statutes and the policy terms. Taking these actions will cure Lloyd’s violations, allowing the insured to promptly restore the damaged property and continue their essential service to the community.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
ccapeles@wshblaw.com 05-02-2025 We write on behalf of Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London subscribing to Policy number 350OR116848, ("Insurers") in response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Violation bearing DFS File No. 812299 (the "Notice") filed by New Beginning Missionary Baptist Church ("the Complainant”) in connection with reported damage to the property located at 2125 NW 155th Street, Opa Locka, FL 33054 (the "Subject Property") due to alleged arson. Insurers insured the Subject Property under Policy No. 350OR116848 which was effective from August 30, 2024 – August 30, 2025 (the "Policy"). The Notice bears a filing acceptance date of March 21, 2025. As such, pursuant to section 624.155, Florida Statutes, Insurers have sixty days from the date of service of the Notice to "cure" and/or respond and reserve their rights in this regard. The response is due on or before May 21, 2025. As a preliminary matter, in the “Notice Against” section, the Notice names “Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London.” To the extent that the Insured is attempting to apply the Notice against the Insurers subscribing to Policy No. 350OR116848, the use of the generic description “Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London” is insufficient under Florida law. Moreover, the Insured's Notice fails to name all Insurers on the policy and incorrectly named the Insured as "JUAN NEW BEGINNING MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH." THE NOTICE IS LEGALLY DEFICIENT At the outset, the Notice should be rejected because it fails to conform with many of the requirements of section 624.155, Florida Statutes. The purpose of a civil remedy notice is to be specific enough to provide the insurer notice of the wrongdoing so that the insurer can cure the same within sixty days. The Notice fails to conform with this requirement. The Notice includes allegations of three separate statutory violations; however, the Complainant fails to link the alleged statutory violations to any facts that would support the claim that Underwriters violated those statutes. Instead, the Complainant generally states that violations of these statutes occurred but provides nothing to substantiate these conclusory claims. "The civil remedy notice must reflect a good-faith effort to inform the insurer of how it has fallen short of its obligations under the policy and what it can do to fix its shortcomings." Rousso, 2010 WL 7367059. "The civil remedy notice is not the place for posturing or advocacy, and an effort to overstate a claim in a civil remedy notice may end up undermining it." Id. Instead of providing Underwriters with facts and instances of the Insureds' concerns about the claim, the Notice is essentially a "shotgun-blast effort" to assert that Underwriters is not complying with the provisions of the Policy and Florida law, though no specific evidence of this has been alleged by the Insureds. See id. at 5. This type of approach is disfavored by Florida courts because it is contrary to the purpose of section 624.155, Florida Statutes. Therefore, Underwriters reiterate that the Notice is legally deficient. Specifically, the Notice should be deemed deficient because it fails to state with specificity the facts and circumstances giving rise to the alleged violations, as required by section 624.155, Florida Statutes. Section 624.155 mandates that a notice "shall state with specificity . . . [t]he facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation." (Emphasis added). The Complainant alleges twelve statutory violations; however, the Complainant fails to link the alleged statutory violations to any facts that would support the claim that Underwriters violated those statutes. Instead, the Complainant states generally that violations of these statutes occurred, but provides no specific facts to substantiate these conclusory claims. For example, the Notice alleges that "the Insured was forced to issue a proper and timely Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation (NOI) on December 18, 2024, under the statutory provisions governing property insurance claims. However, the Complainant is patently incorrect in this assertion. In fact, per the NOI statute, same cannot be filed before the insurers have made a determination of coverage. Therefore, the Insured's NOI is neither proper or timely. Rather, amidst the Insurers' investigation of the claim, including the Examination Under Oath (EUO) of the Insured, information was provided that the Insured property was in foreclosure at the time of the loss, and was conveyed to the mortgage holder before the Insured signed the application for insurance. The Insured did not disclose this information on the application of insurance. This was a material misrepresentation on the application as the Insurers would have not written the subject policy if the Insured would have disclosed said information on the application. That said, based on the facts of this claim, the Insurers investigation, the material misrepresentation made by the Insured on the application, and the provisions of the Policy, the Insurers denied the subject claim. Additionally, the Notice provides blanket conclusory allegations of all of Underwriters' practices. The Notice alleges that Underwriters did not attempt "to settle claims in good faith", "failed to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims" and failed "to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim." In contrast, Underwriters have consistently handled claims with good faith throughout the state of Florida. This accusatory language prejudices Underwriters, however, provides no factual allegations to confirm said statements. The Notice is wholly incorrect. Under Florida law, a Civil Remedy Notice is legally insufficient even under a substantial compliance test, when the CRN virtually implicates the whole policy. Demase v. State Farm Florida Ins. Co., 351 So.3d 136, 139 (Fla. 5th DCA. 2022). The “plain language of section 624.155(3)(b) instructs the policyholder to ‘state with specificity’ information in the notice; to specify ‘language of the statute, which the authorized insurer allegedly violated’ and to ‘[r]eference . . . specific policy language that is relevant to the violation, if any.” Id. at 138 (quoting Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So.3d 875, 878 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). By failing to include specific provisions allegedly violated in the Policy, Underwriters lacks specific information as to what policy language is relevant to the alleged violations. Instead of providing Underwriters with actual notice of the Complainant's concerns about the claim, the Notice is essentially a "shotgun-blast effort to hit a lot of targets with a single salvo." Rousso v. Liberty Surplus Insurance Corp., 2010 WL 7367059 at *5 (S.D. Fla. 2010). This type of approach is disfavored by Florida courts because it is contrary to the purposes of Section 624.155. "The civil remedy notice must reflect a good-faith effort to inform the insurer of how it has fallen short of its obligations under the policy and what it can do to fix its shortcomings. The civil remedy notice is not the place for posturing or advocacy, and an effort to overstate a claim in a civil remedy notice may end up undermining it." Id. As a result, Underwriters cannot respond to the litany of the alleged violations. Accordingly, the Complainant's Notice is deficient because it does not state with specificity the facts and circumstances giving rise to the alleged violations in a manner specific enough to provide Underwriters notice of the alleged wrongdoings, as required by the law. For these reasons, Underwriters respectfully request that the Notice be deemed deficient and insufficient. Additionally, the Notice should be deemed deficient because it does not provide Underwriters with a reasonable opportunity to "cure" the alleged defects. Section 624.155 mandates that "[n]o action shall lie if, within sixty days after filing notice, the damages are paid or the circumstances giving rise to the violation are corrected." (emphasis supplied). The Florida Legislature enacted the sixty-day cure window to provide "a last opportunity for insurers to comply with their claim-handling obligations." 316, Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 625 F. Supp. 2d 1187, 1192 (N.D. Fla. 2008) (quoting Talat Enters., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000)). "[T]he purpose of the civil remedy notice is to give the insurer one last chance to settle the claim with its insured and avoid unnecessary bad faith litigation." 316, Inc., 625 F. Supp. 2d at 1192. The Notice states that to cure, Underwriters must: "complete their investigation and formally issue a coverage determination acknowledging full coverage for the insured's contents claim; promptly issue payment for the full amount of damages claimed ($249,752.05), plus applicable interest, attorneys fees and costs; Cease all unreasonable delay tactics and unnecessary document requests, and fully comply with their obligations under both Florida Statutes and the policy terms. This "cure" does not address many of the statutes alleged to be violated, and thus, is deficient in providing Underwriters proper notice. Moreover, the Insured is not entitled to recover these attorneys' fees, costs, and interest during a claim, and they are not considered part of the contract cure amount under Florida law. See Talat, 753 So. 2d at 1281 UNDERWRITERS HAVE ACTED IN GOOD FAITH In the event that the Notice is not deemed deficient for the reasons laid out above, Underwriters deny that it has acted in bad faith or violated any of the statutes referenced in the Notice. To the contrary, Underwriters have, at all times, acted in good faith and with due consideration of their Insured and Complainant's interests. Underwriters resolved the Complainant's claim as expeditious as possible and in accordance with the terms of coverage afforded by the Policy. The allegations of this claim establish that the Complainant's Notice are unfounded. Specifically, the Notice states that Underwriters "failed and/or refused to thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigate and evaluate the Insured's claim for damages." Shortly after the claim was reported, Underwriters inspected the claimed damaged contents. On October 21, 2024, the Insured's counsel submitted a letter of representation to Insurers. The Insured has since submitted several contents lists for the damaged business personal property being claimed. The most recent finalized and consolidated contents list totals $249,752.05 and encompasses mostly electronics, music equipment, furniture and church items. We note the business personal property limit is $250,000. The Insurers inspected the claimed contents on October 29, 2024, and reviewed the contents inventories submitted by the Insured's Counsel. Thereafter, on December 18, 2024, the Insurers invoked the right to take the Examination Under Oath "EUO" of the Insured to obtain more information related to the loss. The EUO of the Insured's representative, Mr. Eric Readon, took place on February 3, 2025. The EUO testimony elicited from the Insured uncovered information that the property was in foreclosure at the time the policy application was signed. The Insured did not disclose this information on the application of insurance. This was a material misrepresentation on the application as the Insurers would have not issued the subject policy if the Insured would have disclosed said information on the application. That said, based on the facts of this claim, the Insurers investigation, the material misrepresentation made by the Insured on the application, and the provisions of the Policy, the Insurers denied the subject claim. Underwriters adjusted the claim diligently, promptly and properly. Specifically, Underwriters have not violated statutes 624.155(1)(b)(1) or 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), as alleged in the notice because Underwriters promptly sent a contents expert to investigate the claim and to evaluate the claimed damages. Once further information regarding the Insured's ownership interest of the property and foreclosure proceedings was obtained, it became apparent the Insured made a material misrepresentation on the application when obtaining the policy of insurance Additionally, Underwriters have not violated Florida Statute 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g), as alleged in the notice because the Insurer communicated with the Insured and its representatives during the claims process as to the status of the subject claim, conducted a thorough investigation of the claim based on the information available, and explained all aspects of the claim including an explanation of its coverage determination, outlining all applicable policy language. Additionally, Underwriters deny that they have violated any Florida Statutes, Administrative Codes, or any provisions of the Policy. As drafted, the Notice is essentially a contention that Underwriters acted in "bad faith" because they did not pay what the Complainant believed it was owed. This is not "bad faith," and out of step with the governing law and purpose behind the Civil Remedy Notice practice. See 316, Inc., 625 F. Supp. 2d at 1194. "An insurer that denies payment on a claim is not guilty of bad faith as a matter of law." Vest v. Travelers Ins. Co., 753 So. 2d 1270, 1275 (Fla. 2000). Instead, “[t]he insurer has a right to deny claims that it in good faith believes are not owed on a policy.” Id. A good faith denial precludes liability “[e]ven when it is later determined by a court or arbitration that the insurer . . . was mistaken.” Vaughn v. Producers Agriculture Ins. Co., 111 F. Supp. 3d 1251, 1259-60 (N.D. Fla. 2015). For the reasons stated above, Underwriters assert that the Notice is legally deficient. Additionally, Underwriters respectfully emphasize that they have done nothing other than act in utmost good faith and applied the terms of coverage as clearly and unambiguously stated in the Policy. Florida law is clear that an insurer has the right to investigate claims presented for payment and is expressly afforded an opportunity to evaluate its rights and liabilities. See 316, Inc. V. Maryland Cas. Co., 625 F.Supp.2d 1187, 1192 (N.D. Fla. 2008) (quoting Talat Enters., Inc. V. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 2000)). Underwriters vehemently deny that they have acted in bad faith and deny that they have violated any Florida Statutes, Florida law, Administrative Codes or any provisions of the subject Policy of insurance.
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