Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     816284
Filing Accepted:  4/15/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
LUZAMALFI OCHOA AND JOHN OCHOA   First Name  
Street Address * 130 CHICAGO WOODS CIRCLE
City, State Zip * ORLANDO, FL 32824
Email Address * CLAY@THEKRFIRM.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   LUZAMALFI OCHOA AND JOHN OCHOA   First Name  
Policy # * 719989 Claim #* 012204
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* KUHN First Name * CLAYTON Initial
Street Address* 2110 WEST PLATT STREET
City, State Zip* TAMPA , FLORIDA 33606
Email Address * CLAY@THEKRFIRM.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   VYRD INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 17153
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* ANY AND ALL PERSONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CLAIMS HANDLING FROM VYRD INSURANCE COMPANY
Type of Insurance * Commercial Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
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)(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)(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.

THE POLICY LANGUAGE RELEVANT TO THE VIOLATIONS INCLUDES ALL APPLICABLE LOSS PAYMENT AND COVERAGE PROVISIONS OF POLICY NUMBER 719989 INCLUDING THE DECLARATIONS PAGE AND ALL ENDORSEMENTS TO THE POLICY, WITH RESPECT TO COVERAGES A, B, C, AND D. ADDITIONALLY, ANY SECTIONS RELIED UPON BY THE INSURER IN ITS DENIAL TO FULLY PAY THE CLAIM, INCLUDING THE DUTIES IN THE EVENT OF LOSS PROVISIONS AND THE POLICY'S EXCLUSION OF COVERAGE PROVISIONS.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Luzamalfi Ochoa and John Ochoa (hereinafter “Insureds”) are homeowners insured with an all-risks policy issued by VYRD Insurance Company (hereinafter “Carrier”). On or about August 9, 2024, Insureds’ home located at 130 Chicago Woods Circle, Orlando, Florida 32824 sustained significant damage as a result of a water event. Specifically, Insureds’ property sustained water damage due to a plumbing failure in the kitchen. The discharge of water caused damage to Insureds’ property including, but not limited to, the dining room, living room, kitchen, family room, stairs, hallway, and bathroom. The Loss is covered under Insureds’ policy issued by Carrier. The Insureds mitigated damages by contacting Loss Restorations LLC who performed mitigation services on the subject property. All of the relevant documents were provided to Carrier. Insureds promptly reported the claim and fully cooperated with all requests for inspections. Carrier assigned Claim No. 012204 to the loss. The Insureds have fully cooperated with Carrier’s investigation of the claim, including providing all requested documentation and complying with all post-loss policy conditions. Specifically, the Insureds, with assistance from their public adjuster, submitted an estimate for $87,022.20, which was a fair and reasonable assessment for the repair/replacement of damages. Loss Restorations LLC has an outstanding balance in the amount of $3,038.09 for their mitigation services. After reporting the claim, Carrier retained an unqualified and biased field adjuster, Kimberly Carr Ligocki, to adjust the loss. This adjuster had a financial incentive to adjust the loss in a manner that would minimize Carrier’s losses. This adjuster performed a mere cursory inspection of the property on September 10, 2024. Instead of adjusting the claim fairly, honestly, in good faith, and with due regard for the Insureds’ interests, this adjuster made a conscious effort to ignore evidence of covered losses to the property. Worse still, Carrier failed to retain qualified experts necessary to identify the repairs necessary to restore the property to its pre-loss condition. Despite Insureds providing Carrier with a detailed estimate, Carrier failed to pay Insureds the amount necessary to repair/replace the damaged property, less the applicable deductible. Instead, Carrier gave Insureds a lowball estimate that failed to encompass all covered damages. The carrier only offered to pay $9,896.90, after applicable deductible of $2,500.00, a gross underpayment for all the damage associated with this claim. This has become a common business practice for Carrier. Under the circumstances surrounding this claim, had Carrier acted fairly and honestly toward the Insureds and with due regard for the Insureds’ interests, Carrier could and should have attempted in good faith to settle this claim. Carrier did not and, instead, dishonestly, and unfairly placed its own interests well ahead of those of the Insureds. In doing so, Carrier violated Section 624.155(1)(b)(1), Florida Statutes. Carrier’s use of unqualified and biased adjusters, and failure to retain experts necessary to identify the repairs necessary to restore the property to its pre-loss condition, evidence Carrier’s failure to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims in violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), Florida Statutes. Carrier’s use of unqualified and biased adjusters, and failure to retain experts necessary to identify the repairs necessary to restore the property to its pre-loss condition, evidence Carrier’s failure to conduct a reasonable investigation based upon available information. In denying full coverage for this claim without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information, Carrier has violated Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), Florida Statutes. By representing to Insureds that the Policy does not afford full coverage for this loss, Carrier is misrepresenting pertinent facts and/or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue, in violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), Florida Statutes. When applying the facts present here to Florida law, it is clear that Carrier is acting in bad faith. Florida Statute § 624.02 defines insurance as a contract whereby one undertakes to indemnify another or pay or allow a specified amount or a determinable benefit based on determinable contingencies. Inherent is the fact that payment must be made timely and promptly so that insureds may mitigate their damages and be put back into the position they were in prior to the loss as quickly as possible. Carrier has breached this duty by refusing to properly and timely adjust the loss. Moreover, Section 69B-220.201 of the Florida Administrative Code defines Carrier’s adjusters conduct here as an unfair claims settlement practice. Specifically, Section 69B-220.201(3) provides that “[a]n adjuster shall not approach investigations, adjustments, and settlements in a manner prejudicial to the insured” and that “[a]n adjuster shall make truthful and unbiased reports of the facts after making a complete investigation.” As detailed above, Carrier’s investigation and adjustment of this claim was done in a manner prejudicial to Insureds, was incomplete, and lacked truthful and unbiased reports of the facts. Carrier has more than enough information and is still refusing to accept coverage for the Insureds’ claim. This continued and repeated reckless claim delay and denial of coverage will result in a significant punitive damage award if a bad faith lawsuit is filed. Carrier can cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice and avoid a lawsuit for bad faith by immediately accepting full coverage under the subject insurance policy for this claim and by paying Insured’s estimate of $87,022.20, and Loss Restorations LLC in the amount of $3,038.09, less applicable deductible and prior payments, which is the reasonable amount of the covered loss pursuant to the policy. A copy of this form has been submitted to the Florida Department of Financial Services who has transmitted the same to the following parties providing them notice of the filing of this Civil Remedy Notice: VYRD Insurance Company.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
kferry@camboferry.com 06-04-2025 June 4, 2025 Via E-Mail Only Luzamalfi Ochoa and John Ochoa C/O Clayton Kuhn, Esq. 2110 West Platt Street Tampa, FL 33606 clay@thekrfirm.com RE: Claim Number: 012204 Claimant(s): Luzamalfi Ochoa and John Ochoa Policy Number: 719989 Loss Location: 130 Chicago Woods Cir, Orlando, FL 32824 DFS Filing No: 816284 Dear Mr. Kuhn: As you know, my firm represents VYRD Insurance Company (“VYRD”) with respect to the above-referenced matter. This correspondence constitutes VYRD’s response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation (“CRN”) with filing number 816284 you filed on behalf of Luzamalfi Ochoa and John Ochoa. The Notice is void because it is legally invalid. Beyond that, the allegations in the Notice have no merit. I. The Civil Remedy Notice is legally invalid. The filing of a valid Civil Remedy Notice is a condition precedent to an action brought pursuant to section 624.155, Florida Statutes. Talat Enter., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1283 (Fla. 2000). Because the statute is in derogation of the common law, it must be strictly construed. Id. “[A]ny statute in derogation of the common law requires strict compliance with its provisions by one seeking to avail himself of its benefits.” Florida Steel Corp. v. Adaptable Devs., Inc., 503 So. 2d 1232, 1234 (Fla. 1986). Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, requires a civil remedy notice to provide specific information to put the insurer on notice of the alleged violation. Additionally, a civil remedy notice must be “specific enough to provide insurers notice of the wrongdoing so the insurer can cure the same within sixty days.” Valenti v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 8:04CV1615T-30TGW, 2006 WL 1627276, at *2 (M.D. Fla. 2006). Here, the Notice is invalid because it does not contain all of the information required by section 624.155. Demase v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 7760 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022). Also, it is invalid because it lacks sufficient specificity to provide notice to VYRD of the alleged wrongdoing, as discussed below. First, the CRN fails to reference the specific policy language relevant to the alleged violation as required by Fla. Stat. §624.155(3)(b)4. Pursuant to Fla. Stat. §624.155(3)(b)4, the CRN must cite the specific policy language that is relevant to the alleged violations. Here, the CRN essentially references the entire Policy, offering no detail as to what policy provisions are at issue. Therefore, the CRN does not reference the specific policy language alleged to have been violated. Such an omission means that the CRN fails to meet the standard of specificity that is statutorily required. In turn, this prevents VYRD from addressing any issues regarding the policy the Complainant alleges to have been violated, which is the underlying purpose of Fla. Stat. §624.155(3)(b)4. The CRN, therefore, is statutorily deficient because it does not comply with the requirements set forth in Fla. Stat. §624.155(3)(b)4. Demase v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 7760 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022). Second, the CRN does not provide any specific supporting facts and merely makes conclusory statements. For example, the CRN alleges that VYRD “failed to retain qualified experts necessary to identify the repairs necessary to restore the property to its pre-loss condition” without any support for such an assertion or any explanation as to why the individuals who inspected the property were allegedly unqualified. In fact, the CRN does not even mention the fact that VYRD had the property inspected by a professional engineer. No specific facts identifying what, if anything, VYRD did or failed to do with regard to the claim were provided. Instead, the allegations are mere self-serving and conclusory statements without substance or relation to any alleged violation. This undermines the purpose of the CRN requirement preventing VYRD from investigating and resolving any of the alleged violations. The failure to provide any specific supporting facts for the allegations renders the CRN invalid. Demase v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 7760 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022). Additionally, the boilerplate CRN lacks sufficient specificity to provide notice of the alleged bad-faith conduct. The CRN lists four different statutes which VYRD allegedly violated. However, the CRN fails to provide any relevant facts supporting the alleged violations or relating these alleged violations to the four cited statutes. Only conclusory statements are included within the Notice. Because the Civil Remedy Notice fails to identify any specific statutes or any facts to support why the Insureds believe VYRD violated the statutes, VYRD is unable to fully respond and the Notice is invalid and should be rejected and returned. Despite the absence of any supporting facts, VYRD denies any violation of the statutes noted within the CRN as detailed below. Moreover, the CRN does not list the Complainants’ e-mail address instead it provides the email of Clayton Kuhn. See Pin-Pon Corp., 500 F. Supp. 3d 1336 (S.D. Fla. 2020); Demase v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 7760 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022). Further, the CRN does not identify the person or persons who are most knowledgeable of the facts giving rise to the allegations in the CRN. The CRN give no information regarding the identity of any individuals, only stating “any and all persons associated with the claims handling from VYRD Insurance Company.” Therefore, the notice is invalid and should be rejected. See Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021); Fonollosa v. Am. Integrity Ins. Co of Fla, 2021 Fla. Cir. LEXIS 5 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. 2021); Pin-Pon Corp. v. Landmark Ins. Co., 500 F. Supp. 3d 1336 (S.D. Fla. 2020); Demase v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 7760 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022). Finally, the CRN does not list VYRD’s address. See Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021); Pin-Pon Corp., 500 F. Supp. 3d 1336 (S.D. Fla. 2020). Because the CRN fails to comply with the information requirements promulgated by the Department of Financial Services, it is legally invalid. See Pin-Pon Corp. v. Landmark Ins. Co., 500 F. Supp. 3d 1336 (S.D. Fla. 2020); Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 4D19-2763 (September 23, 2020); Demase v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 7760 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022). Again, in serving this response, VYRD reserves all rights under Florida law to be served with a properly completed and statutorily compliant CRN. As the CRN fails to strictly comply with the requirements of section 624.155, Florida Statutes, it is legally insufficient and should be rejected. II. The Civil Remedy Notice Lacks Merit The Notice also lacks merit. The subject claim was reported by a public adjuster on or about August 22, 2024, with a reported date of loss of August 9, 2024, for a kitchen leak at the subject property located at 130 Chicago Woods Cir, Orlando, FL 32824. This claim was reported to VYRD a week after the insured signed a contract with a public adjuster. The same day the claim was reported, VYRD sent correspondence to the insureds acknowledging the claim and advising them of their rights and obligations during the claim process. On August 25, 2024 VYRD sent a letter to the insureds’ public adjuster acknowledging representation and explaining the insureds’ duties under the Policy. A field adjuster inspection was later coordinated. On September 10, 2024, VYRD received an email from the insureds’ public adjuster attaching EMS documents from Loss Restorations. These documents included photographs in the kitchen and dining room that did not show any apparent damage. No other areas of the property were depicted. The Loss Restorations invoice totaled $3,038.09 for alleged dry out services. The same day, the property was inspected by an independent field adjuster on behalf of VYRD in the presence of the insureds and public adjuster. The public adjuster stated that this claim was a water loss stemming from a kitchen leak but did not know the cause of the alleged damage. During his thorough inspection, the field adjuster did not observe any indication of a sudden water loss. The only indication of damage was a light spot on the right side of the interior of the cabinet below the sink. There was no damage to the flooring or any other cabinets. VYRD would later have the property inspected by a professional engineer in order to further investigate the existence, duration and cause of damage. On September 16, 2024, VYRD received an email from the public adjuster attaching an estimate prepared by the public adjuster. Surprisingly, this estimate included not only the kitchen, but repairs to the dining/living room, kitchen/family room, stairs, hallway and bathroom. The public adjuster estimate included complete replacement of all tile flooring and baseboards in the dining room, living room, kitchen and family room. It also included replacement of all top and bottom cabinets in the kitchen, which were written as premium grade cabinets despite the current cabinets having no premium grade characteristics. The same goes for the glass tile in the kitchen, which the public adjuster wrote to replace. This public adjuster estimate totaled $82,507.72, an amount completely out of line with the property condition in both price and scope. Notably, the insureds nor their representatives have ever provided any photographs or evidence that there was any damage to the living room, family room, stairs, hallway or bathroom in relation to this claim, nor was any evidence provided to support damage to the tile flooring as a result of the reported water leak. On October 18, 2024, as VYRD continued to investigate the claim, VYRD sent a letter to the insureds and their public adjuster providing a status update while reserving VYRD’s rights under the policy and requesting information required to complete its investigation. This correspondence stated that VYRD needed an engineer to inspect the property. VYRD had previously assigned an engineer who was working on coordinating an inspection. The same day, VYRD received an email from the public adjuster attaching a plumbing invoice from a company called Consulting Engineering Designing in the amount of $650.00. The description of this invoice stated “plumbing kitchen drains, dishwasher.” No further details or photographs were included. Additionally, the plumbing invoice referenced a company named “Fence Outlet” and otherwise indicated this was for purchase of materials and not an invoice from a plumber. Notably, during her recorded statement, Ms. Ochoa had never heard of this company and what not aware that they allegedly worked at her property. On November 9, 2024, VYRD sent another letter to the insureds and their public adjuster reserving VYRD’s rights under the policy and requesting information. This correspondence explained that Edgewood Engineering had been attempting to coordinate an inspection of the property but had not received any response from the public adjuster. The letter reminded the insureds that the Policy required compliance with their Duties After Loss and requested 1) a recorded statement with the insureds, 2) allowance of an engineer inspection and 3) a completed Sworn Statement in Proof of Loss. The a blank form was provided for the insureds to complete and execute their Sworn Proof of Loss. Pertinent policy language was included regarding the insureds’ post-loss obligations. On November 18, 2024, VYRD’s adjuster emailed the insureds’ public adjuster advising that the engineering firm had reported that they had not received a response from the public adjuster regarding their attempts to coordinate an inspection of the property.. On November 19, 2024, the public adjuster emailed VYRD advising that the engineer inspection had been scheduled. They also discussed coordinating a recorded statement of the insureds. It was eventually scheduled to take place November 22, 2024. On November 22, 2024, VYRD’s adjuster called the public adjuster to connect with the insureds and complete the required recorded statement. After some back and forth regarding an interpreter, the public adjuster advised that the insureds were no longer available and that the recorded statement would have to be rescheduled. On December 3, 2024, VYRD had to send another reservation of rights letter with requests for the same information noted in the November 9, 2024 letter, as none of the requested information had been provided. On December 4, 2024, VYRD’s adjuster received an email from the public adjuster advising that they would work on coordinating a recorded statement. On December 6, 2024, VYRD’s adjuster responded asking for the public adjuster to provided dates with the insureds’ availability and that he would accommodate the insureds’ schedule. A prompt response was not received. On December 11, 2024, VYRD received an email from the public adjuster stating that the insured was not available that week but that he would provide dates for the following week. On December 11, 2024, an engineering inspection was completed at the subject property by the independent engineering firm, Edgewood Engineering. The inspecting engineer would later complete a report of his findings and opinions. On December 16, 2024, VYRD received an email from the public adjuster who provided a potential date for the insureds’ recorded statement. Thereafter, a recorded statement was scheduled for December 20, 2024. On December 20, 2024, a recorded statement was taken with insured, Luz Ochoa. Ms. Ochoa stated that she had seen moisture in the kitchen cabinet directly under the sink and first noted said moisture in June of 2024. She stated that she did not mind the moisture at first because she would clean it with chlorine. She stated that a company had come to dry the moisture, but it would come back and she would clean it with chlorine. She clarified that she would not see a lot of water, just moisture and eventually saw what she thought was mold on the right bottom corner of the cabinet under the kitchen sink. Ms. Ochoa stated that no plumbers had repaired the damage and that she was not familiar with a company called Consulting Engineering Design. She stated that a representative of Loss Restorations knocked on her door and that is how she got in touch with them. She also stated that Loss Restorations referred her to her public adjuster. Ms. Ochoa did not even know who her public adjuster was as Loss Restorations were the ones communicating with the public adjuster. She also confirmed that they had a prior separate plumbing issue in the bathroom near the entry way. She stated that a company said there was moisture, removed wood in the bathroom and saw rotting. Notably, Ms. Ochoa advised that she did not notice any damage to the floors stemming from the subject claim and that the damage was limited to the kitchen area. On January 6, 2025, VYRD’s adjuster received an email from Loss Restorations regarding the status of their EMS invoice. On January 14, 2025, VYRD’s adjuster emailed Loss Restorations advising that the EMS invoice had been received but that the claim was still under investigation. On February 6, 2025, VYRD’s adjuster received an email from the public adjuster asking if a coverage determination had been reached. On February 14, 2025, VYRD’s adjuster emailed the public adjuster advising that VYRD was completing its investigation. VYRD’s adjuster received and reviewed the Edgewood Engineering report before preparing an estimate and rendering a coverage determination. The inspecting engineer’s report included the following conclusions: • The staining and deterioration at the kitchen sink cabinet interior was not due to a single leak event from a single source, as evidenced by the extent of staining/deterioration observed and the multiple potential sources of moisture identified. o The scale and corrosion at the underside of the sink at the faucet/penetrations indicate current and/or prior moisture infiltration through the faucet to sink joint and/or prior leaking at the faucet. o The staining, decay, and suspected microbial growth at the counter framing support; overlapping staining/water run marks at the back panel of the sink cabinet; severely corroded metal electrical junction box at the back panel of the sink cabinet; and the overlapping staining/water scale and corrosion at the underside of the sink rim indicate repeated moisture infiltration through gaps at the counter/backsplash and counter/sink joints. • Based on the extent of staining, deterioration, and/or suspected fungal growth at the finishes within the cabinet at this location, the exposure to moisture from the sources mentioned above were occurring intermittently for an estimated minimum duration of several months to 1 year prior to our site visit. • Additional sources of moisture were evidenced by the water scale/corrosion observed at the drainpipe and drain basin indicating repeated leaking from the drain basin connection. Additionally, an active leak was observed at the cold-water supply valve in the form of a slow drip from the valve-to-pipe connection. These sources were below and remote to the notably stained/deteriorated finishes at the back-left corner of the cabinet, discussed above. • The identifiable deteriorated finishes caused by moisture exposure were isolated to the interior of cabinet beneath the sink. • No notable or similar staining and/or deterioration was observed at the exterior cabinetry finishes and/or adjacent finishes at the opposite wall, trim, and/or floor coverings. It is important to note that any direct damage was limited to the interior of the kitchen cabinet below the sink. As you know, any recovery for this claim is limited to the terms and conditions of the Policy, which limits recovery for matching of undamaged items to one percent of Coverage A. In the subject policy, this matching limit is $4,443.00 under the terms of the subject policy. On February 24, 2025, VYRD’s estimate of damage for this claim was completed. VYRD’s estimate included repair of direct damage including removal and replacement of lower base unit kitchen cabinets, removal and replacement of glass till, patching minor damage to drywall that will occur when backsplash and countertops are removed, sealing, priming and paining kitchen walls along with detaching and resetting range hood, garbage disposal, dishwasher, cooktop and sink. VYRD’s estimate also included matching of undamaged property which noted removing and replacing the non-damaged lower based cabinets, upper wall cabinets, full height cabinets and glass tile. Additional matching items included add on for backsplash installation, detaching and resetting the oven and countertop, and moving, resetting and reconnecting the refrigerator water line with repairs. The repair of direct damage totaled $9,094.23 and the matching portion of the VYRD estimate totaled $9,793.27 before depreciation and the deductible were accounted for. Notably, VYRD’s estimate covers nearly identical items as the public adjuster estimate in relation to the kitchen, besides flooring which the insured stated was not damaged. Additionally, the insureds nor their representatives have ever provided any photographs or evidence that there was any damage to the floors or to the living room, family room, stairs, hallway or bathroom in relation to this claim. On March 3, 2025, VYRD sent its payment and coverage determination letter to the insureds. This letter included a summary of VYRD’s investigation, including the engineering findings, and attached the VYRD estimate referenced above. The following payment breakdown was included: VYRD’s payment letter further stated, “The policy contains conditions, limitations, or provisions that limits coverage for the following items reported as damaged under this claim. The repair to the cold-water supply valve which failed due to wear, tear and deterioration is excluded in the policy. The undamaged portion of the kitchen is subject to the Matching of Undamaged Property endorsement. The limit available under your policy for the Matching of Undamaged Property Coverage is $4,443.00. We have applied your All Perils Deductible of $2,500.00 to the excess value over the policy limit which fully absorbs your deductible.” This correspondence included pertinent policy language while enclosing VYRD’s estimate along with the engineering report. The same day, VYRD’s adjuster attempted to call Loss Restoration to discuss their invoice. There was no answer and VYRD’s adjuster left a detailed message. On March 13, 2025, VYRD’s adjuster again attempted to call Loss Restoration to discuss their invoice. There was no answer and VYRD’s adjuster left a detailed message. The same day, VYRD’s adjuster sent an email to Loss Restoration requesting a call back to discuss their invoice. On March 14, 2025, VYRD’s adjuster again attempted to call Loss Restoration to discuss their invoice. There was no answer and VYRD’s adjuster left a detailed message. On March 26, 2025, VYRD’s adjuster again attempted to call Loss Restoration to discuss their invoice. There was no answer and VYRD’s adjuster left a detailed message. On April 4, 2025, VYRD’s adjuster attempted to call the insured’s public adjuster to discuss settlement of the claim. The public adjuster did not answer and VYRD’s adjuster left a detailed message requesting a call back. On April 11, 2025, VYRD’s adjuster again attempted to call Loss Restoration to discuss their invoice. There was no answer and VYRD’s adjuster left a detailed message. No response was ever received. On April 15, 2025, before ever reaching out to VYRD to discuss the claim, payment, or potential resolution, your office filed the subject CRN to which VYRD now responds. No additional documentation or information was provided. The same day, your office filed a Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation. On April 24, 2025, my office sent you a letter regarding our representation of VYRD, statutory deficiencies within the CRN, and additional information needed in order to fully respond to your CRN. This correspondence requested 1) Photographs or evidence of damage to the bathroom, dining/living room, stairs and/or hallway; 2) Photographs or evidence of damage to the kitchen tile floor; 3) Any and all photographs taken by the public adjuster; and 4) Documentation of any and all repairs completed at the property related to the subject claim. Your office did not respond to these requests. On April 29, 2025, VYRD sent your office a letter in response to your Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation. This correspondence raised deficiencies within your Notice of Intent, reserved VYRD’s rights under the policy, and asserted VYRD’s right to have the insureds to participate in mediation. On May 1, 2025, mediation was scheduled for July 9, 2025. This mediation is still scheduled to take place and VYRD intends on attending this mediation in a continued good faith effort to resolve the subject claim. On May 19, 2025, we sent you another letter following up on the requests within our April 24, 2025 letter as no response had been received and VYRD had still not received any documentation or photographs of damage to any room besides the kitchen. Your office did not respond to this correspondence and VYRD has still not received the requested documentation regarding proof of the insureds’ alleged damage to areas outside the kitchen. On June 4, 2025, despite receiving no response from Loss Restorations to discuss their invoice, VYRD issued payment to Loss Restorations for the full EMS invoice in the amount of $3,038.09. VYRD sent a letter to Loss Restorations advising them that this payment had been issued. VYRD specifically denies any violation of Florida Statutes Section 624.155(1)(b)(1) as it adjusted the claim fairly and issued payment consistent with the terms, conditions and limitations of the Policy. Further, VYRD never had the opportunity to settle the claim as the public adjuster never responded to VYRD’s attempt to discuss settlement. Additionally, your office filed the subject CRN before ever reaching out to VYRD to discuss the claim or potential resolution. VYRD specifically denies any violation of Florida Statutes Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) as it thoroughly and properly investigated this claim. This investigation included inspections by an independent field adjuster and professional engineer, which your CRN fails to acknowledge. VYRD specifically denies any violation of Florida Statutes Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) as its never misrepresented any facts to the insureds. In fact, VYRD provided the insureds and their representatives with updates during the claim, a summary of their investigation and detailed explanations regarding coverage, including the pertinent policy information. VYRD specifically denies any violation of Florida Statutes Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) as it thoroughly, reasonably and properly investigated this claim. This investigation included inspections by an independent field adjuster and professional engineer, which your CRN fails to acknowledge. In light of VYRD’s investigation, coverage was properly accepted and payment was issued for covered damages in the amount of $9,896.90 under the subject claim, pursuant to the terms, conditions, exclusions, limits and deductible of the subject policy. Accordingly, VYRD denies any and all allegations of bad faith in connection with the claim submitted by Luzamalfi Ochoa and John Ochoa. Sincerely, /s/ Matthew Barclay Matthew K. Barclay, 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