Civil Remedy Filing

Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations

Filing Number: 813792

Filing Accepted: 3/31/2025

Print Filing

Complainant

Last/Business Name *

WYATT

First Name

ROBIN R.

Street Address *

14910 CAMARGO PLACE

City, State Zip *

LAKEWOOD RANCH, FL 34202

Email Address *

ROBIN@WYATTANDCOMPANY.COM

Complainant Type: *

Insured

Last/Business Name*		WYATT		First Name		ROBIN R.
Policy # *		OIC3037253-00		Claim #*		24FLHOV0017157

Attorney

Attorney is Applicable

Last Name*	FANTETTI First Name * KELLY Initial A
Street Address*		109 S. EDISON AVENUE
City, State Zip*		TAMPA , FLORIDA 33606
Email Address *		KFANTETTI@STOCKHAMLAWGROUP.COM

Violation

Insurer Type *		Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer

Insurer Name
Insurer Name*		OLYMPUS INSURANCE COMPANY
Insurer Name*
Street Address*
City, State Zip*		,
NAIC Company Code 12954

Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* ASHLEE CALIFF, KIANNA REDDICK, GARRETT WICKS
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty

Reason for Notice *

	Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
	Claim Delay
	Unfair Trade Practice
	Other : Insufficient Investigation

* 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)(a)		Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
	626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c)		Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
	626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d)		Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information.

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

Loss Settlement d. We will initially pay the actual cash value of the loss, less any applicable deductible. We will then pay any remaining amounts necessary to perform the actual repair or replacement as work is performed and expenses are incurred . . . I. Loss Payment We will adjust all losses with you. We will pay you unless some other person is named in the policy or is legally entitled to receive payment, and we have not elected our option to repair. Our Option 1. At our option, in lieu of issuing any loss payment, if we choose to exercise our option: b. For losses insured for replacement cost . . . we may elect to repair or replace any or all of the damaged property with material of like kind and quality without deduction for depreciation. 2. If we choose to exercise our option, we will provide written notice to you no later than 30 days after our inspection of the loss.

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

In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. Olympus Insurance Company (“OLYMPUS”) has breached the public’s trust by its adjustment of Robin R. Wyatt’s (“INSURED”) claim of loss. Olympus Insurance Company’s address is P.O. Box 16005, Jacksonville, Florida 32246 OLYMPUS has failed to create and implement adequate guidelines for the proper investigation and evaluation of claims, claims handling, and for training and supervision of employees resulting in statutory violations as set forth above. OLYMPUS has failed and/or refused to thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigate and evaluate the INSURED’S insurance claim for damages. OLYMPUS has failed to promptly settle the INSURED’S insurance claim when the obligation to settle the insurance claim had become reasonably clear. To date, notwithstanding the INSURED’S pleas otherwise, OLYMPUS has continued to refuse to acknowledge its obligation to conduct a proper investigation, and to tender the full amount of insurance monies due and owing its INSURED under the policy. Rather, OLYMPUS has denied the claim, in part, without conducting a reasonable investigation of the available information. This claim involves the INSURED’S property located at 14910 Camargo Place, Lakewood Ranch, Florida 34202, which sustained significant damage from Hurricane Milton on October 9, 2024. The INSURED had damage to her roof, gutters, garage door, windows, screen enclosure, stucco, and interior ceilings. Within days of the hurricane, the INSURED promptly reported her claim to OLYMPUS, and she attempted to mitigate her damages by having her roof tarped and her screen enclosure repaired. She paid $60.00 for the screen repairs and $1,200.00 for the roof tarping, for a total of $1,260.00. The INSURED also retained a public adjuster to help her assess her damages. On October 17, 2024, instead of sending a licensed adjuster out to inspect the INSURED’S claim, OLYMPUS sent a roofing contractor, Southern Safe Construction, which showed up at the INSURED’S property without notice and while she was not home. She arrived home to find complete strangers up on her roof without her consent. The INSURED’S public adjuster complained to OLYMPUS about this unnoticed and inappropriate inspection, and as a result, OLYMPUS arranged for a reinspection wherein Southern Safe was supposed to inspect the damages jointly with the public adjuster (PA). This inspection took place on October 22, 2024. However, the representative from Southern Safe, Steve Rozado, refused to get on the roof with the PA so that they could review the damages together. Mr. Rozado claimed that he had seen everything he needed to see during his unauthorized inspection on October 17, 2024; however, he admitted that he did not look under the tarping, did not confirm how the tile was installed, did not determine the brand/make of tile, did not assess the type of underlayment, and did not take measurements. Thereafter, on November 13, 2024, the PA provided OLYMPUS with an itemized estimate of the damages and a signed proof of loss from the INSURED. On November 16, 2024, OLYMPUS rejected the proof of loss, despite that no OLYMPUS adjuster had ever inspected the property, and both inspections by Southern Safe had been wholly inadequate. That same day, OLYMPUS sent a letter to the INSURED invoking its option to repair the property in violation of the policy. The policy states that OLYMPUS can invoke its option to repair within 30 days after OLYMPUS has inspected the property; however, to date, no adjuster on behalf of OLYMPUS has ever inspected the INSURED’S property. The letter from OLYMPUS also states that the roof and screen damage are covered, and it advises that OLYMPUS will be sending a payment of $800, after the application of the $1000 deductible. However, in the letter, OLYMPUS miscalculated the cost of the repairs. In notes that the tarp was $1,200.00 and the screen repairs were $60.00, but it incorrectly states that this total is $1,800.00. Finally, OLYMPUS advised the INSURED that it would be sending an engineer to inspect the property. Thereafter, OLYMPUS retained Paul Davis Restoration to prepare an estimate of the interior repairs, and on November 19, 2024, PDR sent an invoice to the INSURED improperly requesting payment directly from her for the estimate. OLYMPUS was notified of this issue, but PDR continued to send this invoice, most recently on March 13, 2025. Also on November 19, 2024, Southern Safe contacted the INSURED to advise that the claim had been “approved,” but no detail was provided as to what was “approved.” On November 25, 2024, Cameron Bradley of Southern Safe clarified that OLYMPUS had approved a roof repair, but he provided no estimate or scope for the proposed repairs. On November 26, 2024, the INSURED’S public adjuster sent a detailed letter to OLYMPUS outlining his concerns over the way that the claim was being handled. Furthermore, he outlined the INSURED’S concerns over OLYMPUS using Southern Safe to conduct the repairs, given their poor investigation, as well as their extremely poor online reviews. Finally, he notified OLYMPUS of their math error regarding the $800.00 payment. OLYMPUS never responded to this letter. Thereafter, the claim was delayed for nearly two months while the INSURED awaited the engineering inspection. SDII Global finally inspected the property on January 22, 2025. The engineer identified 13 chipped tiles, 47 fractured tiles, and 21 tiles previously repaired or replaced. In one area of the report, the engineer claims that there were no missing tiles, but in another area of the report, she acknowledged 3 missing cap tiles. Nevertheless, the report somehow concludes that only 24 of the damaged tiles were related to the hurricane. The engineer also acknowledged that there was a large section of tarping that she was unable to look under, and therefore, there could be additional damage underneath the tarp. SDII concluded that the roof can be repaired, without providing any guidance on how the roof should be repaired or what tile can be used for the repair. SDII then determined that the interior damages in the office and living room were unrelated to the hurricane, but the engineer admits that there was a large tarp on the roof in this area that she did not look under. Despite this poor engineering inspection, on January 30, 2025, OLYMPUS sent a letter to the INSURED advising that the interior damages were being denied. OLYMPUS still did not provide an estimate or scope for the roof repairs. Therefore, the INSURED was forced to retain counsel. The Stockham Law Group sent a letter of representation to OLYMPUS on February 25, 2025, and OLYMPUS acknowledged the letter the next day. Nevertheless, Southern Safe and OLYMPUS have continued to communicate directly with the INSURED without including her counsel. On March 11, 2025, counsel for the INSURED again requested an estimate or scope of work from Southern Safe. Garrett Wicks, an adjuster for OLYMPUS, responded back the same day and, for the first time, provided a proposed scope, but it was wholly inadequate to put the insured on notice of the work that Southern Safe intends to do at her home. Therefore, counsel for the insured requested a more detailed proposal for the full scope of work. On March 13, 2025, OLYMPUS adjuster Kianna Reddick advised that she would request a more detailed scope from Southern Safe, but it has now been more than two weeks, and nothing has been provided. The INSURED has since retained her own roofing expert, Steven Thomas from Roof Leak Detection Company, who identified fractured and wind shifted tiles, tiles with corner breaks, point load fracturing, and wind displaced cap tiles. He also noted that approximately 10% of the tiles had been loosened at the fasteners. The damages to the roof spanned nearly every slope of the roof. Mr. Thomas noted that because the roof was mechanically fastened, with nails/screws through the underlayment, the underlayment would need to be repaired anywhere that tiles were repaired. However, placing new underlayment over existing underlayment creates a back lap that allows water to get into seems and provides a potential source for additional water intrusion. Mr. Thomas also noted that the roof tiles on the INSURED’S roof had been discontinued and were no longer being manufactured. Given the widespread nature of the damages and the lack of availability of the tile, Mr. Thomas recommended a complete roof replacement. The concept of insurance is that the insurer will investigate and grant timely and prompt indemnity or security against a contingent loss. Florida Statute §624.02 defines “insurance” as a contract whereby one undertakes to indemnify another or pay or allow a specified amount or a determinable benefit upon determinable contingencies. Inherent in that definition is the fact that payment must be made timely and promptly so that the INSURED may mitigate her damages and be put back into the position she was in prior to the loss as quickly as possible. OLYMPUS has breached this duty. The INSURED was, and still is, forced to expend out of pocket monies to submit her insurance claim, e.g., retaining an attorney and other experts to force OLYMPUS to honor its obligations under the insurance policy and to pay all the insurance proceeds due and owing to her. OLYMPUS has refused and/or failed to tender all the insurance proceeds due and owing to the INSURED. INSURER’s refusal and/or failure to settle the insurance claim when under all circumstances it could have and should have done so had it acted fairly and honestly towards the INSURED is wrongful conduct. Furthermore, the INSURED contends that OLYMPUS’ adjusters and/or representatives financially benefit from such wrongful conduct. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, OLYMPUS must (1) Promptly tender all insurance proceeds due and owing to the Insureds that would reasonably place the Insured back into the pre-loss condition, including the tender of accrued interest due and owing to the Insureds; (2) Promptly and timely communicate with the Insured’s representatives to complete the adjustment of the Insured’s loss by participating in good faith negotiations to reach an agreement relating to the parties’ dispute over coverage, scope and amount. This notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by Fla. Stat. §624.155.

Comments

User Id		Date Added		Comment
ghoffmann@bressler.com		05-29-2025		Bressler Amery & Ross, P.C. 515 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 800 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 May 29, 2025 Via U.S. Mail, Certified Mail and E-mail: KFANTETTI@STOCKHAMLAWGROUP.COM Kelly A. Fantetti, Esq. Stockham Law Group, P.A. 109 S. Edison Avenue Tampa, FL 33606 Complainant(s): Robin R. Wyatt Policy #: OIC3037253-00 Claim #: 24FLHOV0017157 DFS Filing #: 813792 Dear Mrs. Fantetti: Please accept this response on behalf of Olympus Insurance Company (hereinafter “Olympus”) to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (hereinafter “CRN”) No. 813792, filed on behalf of Eliana and Robin R. Wyatt (hereinafter, the “Complainant” or the “Insured”), and accepted by the Florida Department of Financial Services on March 31, 2025. The CRN alleges that Olympus violated the following statutes: • 624.155(1)(b)(1) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests. • 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. • 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. • 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information. Please accept this as Olympus response to the above-referenced CRN filed with the Department of Financial Services by the Complainant, Robin R. Wyatt. To summarize the below, Olympus hereby denies any allegation of not attempting to settle claims in good faith when it could and should have done so; failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims; failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims; and denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information, and agrees to coverage, and states that it has at all times handled and adjusted the Complainant’s claim with utmost good faith. Simply put, Olympus denies any acts or omission that could be construed or found to be deemed bad faith and/or a violation of Florida Statutes § 624.155 and § 626.9541, whether expressly stated in the Civil Remedy Notice or implied. Any and all allegations of bad faith are hereby denied and rejected in their entirety by Olympus. Olympus denies and rejects the instant CRN as it fails to comply with the requirements of Florida Statute § 624.155. The CRN is therefore deficient and fails to preserve any and all claims for statutory bad faith under Florida Law. Florida Statute § 624.155 requires a complainant to file with the Department of Financial Services a Civil Remedy Notice which shall be “on a form provided by the [Department] and shall state with specificity…such other information as the Department may require.” The Department created a CRN form, Form DFS-10-363, which lays out 15 requirements, including in part, the complainant’s e-mail address, complainant type, claim number, attorney’s name, attorney’s address, attorney’s e-mail address, type of insurer, the person with knowledge of the facts giving rise to the allegations, and the reason for notice. According to § 624.155, these mandates are required by the Department, and they must be stated with specificity. The instant CRN fails to provide the specificity required by § 624.155 and fails to comply with the form requirements as a whole. Therefore, the instant CRN is facially deficient. See Bay v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, No. 4D19-3332, 2020 WL 6154256 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct. 21, 2020). Specifically, the instant CRN filing provides “[Ashlee Califf, Kianna Reddick, and Garrett Wicks]” as the “person or persons representing the insurer who are most responsible for/knowledgeable of the facts giving rise to the allegations in this notice.” Mrs. Califf is the Claims Adjuster assigned to the claim who has sent several correspondences to the Complainant. However, Mrs. Reddick and/or Mr. Wicks have not represented Olympus in any capacity as it relates to the instant claim. Since the claim was opened on October 12, 2024, Claims Adjuster Mrs. Califf has sent several correspondences to the insured Complainant and/or their representatives on behalf of Olympus, including but not limited to a Letter of Representation Acknowledgement Letter dated August 7, 2023, a Sworn Proof of Loss Acknowledgement Letter dated November 16, 2024, and a Coverage Determination Letter dated January 30, 2025. Moreover, Olympus’s Claims Managers, Keyisha Hart and/or Diane Hansen, were not named in the Complainant’s response to the Department’s prompt. Whether the Complainant misread the prompt or simply dismissed what the Department had requested and failed to include any of the various people who have assisted with their claim, the Complainant’s failure to comply with the requisite baseline form requirements is insufficient under Florida law to support any action for bad faith against Olympus without speculation on its part. Due to this intentional withholding of mandated information, the CRN is facially deficient as it fails to comply with the form requirements set forth in Florida Statute § 624.155, and specifically § 624.155(3)(b)(3). See Bay v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, No. 4D19-3332, 2020 WL 6154256 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct. 21, 2020). Furthermore, the CRN’s attempt to identify the specific policy language relevant to the violation is woefully deficient. “Courts have found that listing whole sections of the insurance policy constitutes insufficient specificity.” See Fox v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., No. 8:16-CV-3254-T-23MAP, 2017 WL 1541294 at 2 and Julien v. United Property & Casualty Insurance Company No. 4D19-2763 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020).” When prompted to reference the policy language that is relevant to the alleged violation, the Complainant made absolutely no effort to provide relevant policy language. Instead, the Complainant provided three generic section headings followed by one sentence contained within each section, without including any context as to why they’re relevant to the instant CRN or any allegations which the Complainant alleges against Olympus. The Complainant listed “Loss Settlement – d. We will initially pay the actual cash value of the loss, less any applicable deductible. We will then pay any remaining amounts necessary to perform the actual repair or replacement as work is performed and expenses are incurred… I. Loss Payment – We will adjust all losses with you. We will pay you unless some other person is named in the policy or is legally entitled to receive payment, and we have not elected our option to repair,” etc. These sentences are relevant to any and every claim for insurance benefits, and the Complainant again provided no context nor any specific policy language that’s relevant to their claim or their contentions against Olympus. The Complainant entirely failed respond to the Department’s prompt, again dismissing the mandated information needed to submit a valid CRN against an insurer. Accordingly, the CRN does not provide the contemplated and mandated notice of alleged bad faith that is required as a condition precedent to any civil claim for bad faith pursuant to Florida Statute § 624.155. Julien v. United Property & Casualty Insurance Company No. 4D19-2763 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020). Failure to provide specific reference to any relevant policy language is direct and clear noncompliance with the requirements of Florida Statute § 624.155, and therefore renders the CRN deficient on its face as to form and substance. For these reasons alone, the CRN fails at its inception. Additionally, the CRN fails to provide a complete description relating to the facts and/or circumstances which give rise to the alleged statutory violations, thus, prejudicing Olympus from providing any meaningful or complete response. In summary, the CRN is hardly more than a recitation of a number of Florida statutory provisions, with minimal factual allegations in support of the conclusory statutory recitations. A Civil Remedy Notice must state the facts and circumstances that give rise to an alleged violation with specificity sufficient to allow an insurer to cure the alleged violation within the sixty-day statutory period. Lane v. Westfield Insurance Company, 862 So.2d 774 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). The instant CRN therefore fails to comply with the requirements of Florida Statute § 624.155(3), which requires that a CRN of insurer violation “state with specificity,” inter alia, the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation and the “specific” language of the subject insurance policy that is relevant to the violation. The CRN fails to specify what was lacking in Olympus’s investigation and fails to specify facts which support that its investigation was unfair or merits additional steps. Olympus’s knowledge, the instant claim for insurance benefits has been evaluated and/or adjusted properly. The CRN further lacks any specificity, facts, or rationale which indicate that Olympus’s coverage determination should have been different. Generally, the CRN lacks the requisite facts and/or specificity, as ruled on numerous times and cited to throughout this response, to put Olympus on notice as to the allegations against it. Moreover, the few facts that are stated in the CRN are contrary to the facts of the underlying claim or are at best misleading. The CRN states that “On November 16, 2024, [Olympus] rejected the proof of loss, despite that no [Olympus] adjuster had ever inspected the property…” However, these claims are immediately false and misleading. Also, the CRN claims that, “That same day, [Olympus] sent a letter to the [insured] invoking its option to repair the property in violation of the policy. The policy states that [Olympus] can invoke its option to repair within 30 days after [Olympus] has inspected the property; however, to date, no adjuster on behalf of [Olympus] has ever inspected the [insured’s] property.” Again, this statement is untrue and unfounded, and undermines Olympus’s investigation and claims handling processes. Rather, Olympus received notice of the claim on October 12, 2024, and inspected the property through its general contractor, Southern Safe Construction, within the same week. Contrary to the Complainant’s misleading allegation, Olympus does not employ in-house field adjusters, and routinely inspects claims through licensed agents such as Southern Safe Construction. Also, Olympus invoked its Option to Repair the property’s roof damages via written correspondence sent to the insured Complainant on November 16, 2024, and within full compliance of the Policy’s terms and conditions. Meanwhile, the Complainant has provided no facts or evidence to support their allegations in support of the instant CRN or in any other context throughout the entirety of their claim. The facts outlined above show that Olympus promptly and thoroughly investigated the subject claim and has acted in good faith based upon its understanding of the facts. It is the Complainant who is not complying with the policy’s terms and who is continuing to make unsupported allegations in an attempt to deceive Olympus to issue unwarranted payments and/or additional benefits. The subject CRN makes egregious and baseless allegations that “[Olympus] has refused and/or failed to tender all the insurance proceeds due and owing to the [insured]. [Olympus’s] refusal and/or failure to settle the insurance claim when under all circumstances it could have and should have done so had it acted fairly and honestly toward the [insured] is wrongful conduct,” and “… the [insured] contends that [Olympus’] adjusters and/or representatives financially benefit from such wrongful conduct.” These are serious blanket allegations made without one scintilla of factual evidence in support of any of such claims. The facts of this claim disprove these baseless allegations that the Complainant has raised. Rather, Olympus diligently investigated the subject loss within days of it being reported through a licensed general contractor who performed a thorough inspection of the property and provided Olympus with a detailed report of his observations and 171 photos of the property. Olympus then consulted with an independent engineer, Kelly Shanahan of Sdii Global, LLC, who provided an expert opinion as to the roof’s condition and the cause and origin of the reported damages. Olympus then issued its coverage determination via written correspondence to the insured Complainant dated January 30, 2025, which informed the Complainant that “The engineer concluded the garage trim stucco, garage door, and the downspout were caused by wind-borne debris associated with Hurricane Milton. the garage trim stucco, garage door, and the downspout are covered under your policy. Olympus has selected the option to repair the garage trim stucco, garage door, and dented downspout,” and that “Based on our investigation of your claimed damage the office/living room ceiling and laundry room ceiling was determined to be the result of constant or repeated seepage or leakage of water and not the result of a Peril Insured Against. Be advised, your policy does not include coverage for constant or repeated seepage or leakage of water over a period of weeks, months or years. Based on the terms and conditions of your policy, Olympus respectfully denies your claim for the damage to the office/living room ceiling and laundry room ceiling.” Throughout the handling of the subject claim, Olympus has actively engaged in open communication with the insured Complainant and their representative(s) and has acted based upon the facts and according to the terms of the insurance contract which provides rights to both the Complainant as well as the insurer for scenarios just like this one. Furthermore, the Complainant’s cure demand is indiscernible and as such Olympus is not given a fair opportunity to cure the CRN. The CRN states: [T]o cure the defects outlined in this [CRN], [Olympus] must: (1) Promptly tender all insurance proceeds due and owing to the Insureds that would reasonably place the Insured back into the pre-loss condition, including the tender of accrued interest due and owing to the Insureds; (2) Promptly and timely communicate with the Insured’s representatives to complete the adjustment of the Insured’s loss by participating in good faith negotiations to reach an agreement relating to the parties’ dispute over coverage, scope and amount. This is the functional equivalent of “Pay me everything I’ve asked for.” Rousso v. Liberty Surplis Ins. Co., 2010 WL 736059, 5 (S.D. Fla. 2010). “Insurers are not required to pay any amount demanded by their insureds to avoid a bad-faith claim.” Id. (citing 316, Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 625 F. Supp. 2d 1187, 1194 (N.D. Fla. 2008)). However, regardless of its legitimacy, the CRN itself contains a cure in the form of an admission of liability and Olympus cannot even begin to attempt to cure the instant CRN on such unclear terms. In addition to demanding “everything I’ve asked for,” the cure is unclear as to what it’s asking for, from who it’s asking, and for whom it’s asking on behalf. The cure provides no specified basis for Olympus to even attempt to calculate some unknown amount of “all insurance proceeds due and owing that would reasonably place the Insured back into the pre-loss condition,” nor any method to calculate the requested accrued interest in addition to the indeterminate insurance proceeds. Rather, the cure demand is merely an attempt to deceive Olympus into issuing some ambiguous payment(s) rather than defending itself against a threat of bad faith when no bad faith is remotely existent. Given the cure, Olympus affirmatively asserts that the CRN is deficient. The monetary cure demand is not the total amount of the cure. The rest of the cure’s non-monetary conditions are entirely illusory and unascertainable due to the lack of specificity contained in the CRN. The CRN states that Olympus can cure the CRN only if it “complete[s] the adjustment of the Insured’s loss by participating in good faith negotiations to reach an agreement relating to the parties’ dispute…” However, the CRN does not state what’s in dispute, nor provided any evidence to show that Olympus hasn’t already engaged in good faith negotiations since the claim’s inception. Since no other distinct basis for a cure has been set forth by the Civil Remedy Notice, Olympus was not provided with a reasonable opportunity to purge any alleged violations. See Kafie v. NorthWestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 834 F. Supp. 2d 1354, 1359 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (“In order to demonstrate good faith, ‘[t]he insurer must investigate the facts, [and] give fair consideration to a settlement offer that is not unreasonable under the facts…’”). Based on the facts provided, it is impossible for Olympus to satisfy the Complainant without significantly prejudicing itself, and therefore the CRN fails to provide a true and feasible cure method. Accordingly, the CRN does not provide the contemplated and mandated notice of alleged bad faith that is required as a condition precedent to any civil claim for bad faith pursuant to Florida Statute § 624.155. Similarly, for these reasons, the CRN fails. As outlined above, contrary to the allegations made by the CRN, Olympus sufficiently and diligently investigated the loss. Olympus maintains that it has acted fairly and honestly toward the Complainant, and any other person having an interest in the subject policy or assisting the Complainant in connection with the instant claim. Olympus consistently and promptly communicated with the Complainant and/or their agents throughout all stages of the investigation and conducted a thorough investigation in good faith. To the extent that the instant CRN is intended to address any other facts or circumstances which purport to establish additional coverage for the reported losses, the CRN provides insufficient identification of any such facts or circumstances and therefore prevents Olympus from addressing any other aspect herein. Notwithstanding, Olympus believes that the above facts demonstrate beyond dispute that it has at all times acted in good faith with regard to its investigation of the subject claim, and further believes that the facts provided to date fail to establish that it has not adjusted the reported loss in accordance with the express terms, provisions, limitations and exclusions contained within the policy. If we can provide any additional information, or be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, /s/ Gregory S. Hoffmann, Esq. _ Gregory S. Hoffmann, Esq.

Acknowledgement
*	The submitter hereby states that this notice is given in order to perfect the rights of the person(s) damaged to pursue civil remedies authorized by Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. Before submitting a Notice using this system, please verify that all text has been entered correctly and completely. Once the Notice has been submitted, the text cannot be changed or deleted.

DFS-10-363
Rev. 10/14/2008