Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     820504
Filing Accepted:  5/9/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
COACHMAN CREEK CONDO ASSOCIATION INC   First Name  
Street Address * 2625 STATE ROAD 590
City, State Zip * CLEARWATER, FL 33759
Email Address * COACHMAN.PRESIDENCY@GMAIL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   COACHMAN CREEK CONDO ASSOCIATION INC   First Name  
Policy # * AMC-29347-05 Claim #* 4160072
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* DUNNAVANT First Name * ERIN Initial E
Street Address* 901 W SWANN AVE
City, State Zip* TAMPA , FL 33606
Email Address * SERVICE@DANDDLAW.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   AMERICAN COASTAL INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 12968
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* CLAIMS DEPT, SUPERVISORS, MGMT, AGENTS, AND ADJUSTERS INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO: HEATHER M. FLEMING KOSKINAS, ESQ., C. RYAN JONES, ESQ.,TAMELA HUGHEY; SEDGWICK; CGW ASSOCIATES; GRINDLEY WILLIAMS ENGINEERING
Type of Insurance * Commercial Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Cancellation
Non-renewal
Claim Denial
Claim Delay
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Unfair Trade Practice
Other : Violation of Code of Ethics
Other : Litigation Strategy and Behavior
* Statutory provision(s) which the insurer allegedly violated.
 
624.155(1)(b)(1) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests.
624.155(1)(b)(3) Except as to liability coverages, failing to promptly settle claims, when the obligation to settle a claim has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e) Failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and, as to partial coverage, the dollar amount or extent of coverage, or failing to provide a written statement that the claim is being investigated, upon the written request of the insured within 30 days after proof-of-loss statements have been completed.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f) Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of the basis in the insurance policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g) Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h) Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary.
626.9541(1)(i)(4) Failing to pay undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed under first-party property insurance policies within 60 days after an insurer receives notice of a residential property insurance claim, determines the amounts of partial or full benefits, and agrees to coverage, unless payment of the undisputed benefits is prevented by factors beyond the control of the insurer as defined in s. 627.70131(5).
* 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 Insured believes the language relevant to the violations includes all applicable coverages, the valuation provision, the loss payment provision and other terms and conditions of Policy No. AMC-29347-05 relevant to its sinkhole loss and damage including the declarations page and all endorsements to the policy. The Insured believes the following coverages may apply based on the information available to it: THESE DECLARATIONS, TOGETHER WITH THE COMMON POLICY CONDITIONS, COVERAGE PART DECLARATIONS, COVERAGE PART DECLARATIONS FORMS(S) AND FORMS AND ENDORSEMENT, IF ANY, ISSUED TO FORM A PART THEREOF, COMPLETE THE ABOVE NUMBERED POLICY. COVERAGES PROVIDED Insurance at the Described Premises Applies Only For Coverages For Which A Limit of Insurance is shown Described Location Premises Limit of Insurance Loc No. Bldg. No. Address Building Contents Other 0001 0001 2625 STATE RD 590 CLEARWATER FL 33759 $814,814 0002 0001 2625 STATE RD 590 CLEARWATER FL 33759 $814,814 0003 0001 2625 STATE RD 590 CLEARWATER FL 33759 $697,246 0004 0001 2625 STATE RD 590 CLEARWATER FL 33759 $684,163 0005 0001 2625 STATE RD 590 CLEARWATER FL 33759 $1,002,195 0006 0001 2625 STATE RD 590 CLEARWATER FL 33759 $684,163 0007 0001 2625 STATE RD 590 CLEARWATER FL 33759 $701,656 0008 0001 2625 STATE RD 590 CLEARWATER FL 33759 $684,163 0009 0001 2625 STATE RD 590 CLEARWATER FL 33759 $632,647 0010 0001 2625 STATE RD 590 CLEARWATER FL 33759 $1,015,955 0011 0001 2625 STATE RD 590 CLEARWATER FL 33759 $1,001,850 0012 0001 2625 STATE RD 590 CLEARWATER FL 33759 $1,001,850 0013 0001 2625 STATE RD 590 CLEARWATER FL 33759 $1,015,955 0014 0001 2625 STATE RD 590 CLEARWATER FL 33759 $684,163 0015 0001 2625 STATE RD 590 CLEARWATER FL 33759 $684,163 0016 0001 2625 STATE RD 590 CLEARWATER FL 33759 $684,163 0017 0001 2625 STATE RD 590 CLEARWATER FL 33759 $814,814 Described Location Premises Limit of Insurance Loc No. Bldg. No. Address Building Contents Other 0018 0001 2625 STATE RD 590 CLEARWATER FL 33759 $814,814 0019 0001 2625 STATE RD 590 CLEARWATER FL 33759 $1,002,195 0020 0001 2625 STATE RD 590 CLEARWATER FL 33759 $200,356 $15,000 0021 0001 2625 STATE RD 590 CLEARWATER FL 33759 $814,814 0022 0001 2625 STATE RD 590 CLEARWATER FL 33759 $559,743 0023 0001 2625 STATE RD 590 CLEARWATER FL 33759 $559,743 0024 0001 2625 STATE RD 590 CLEARWATER FL 33759 $559,743 0025 0001 2625 STATE RD 590 CLEARWATER FL 33759 $559,742 0026 0001 2625 STATE RD 590 CLEARWATER FL 33759 $829,896 0027 0001 2625 STATE RD 590 CLEARWATER FL 33759 $559,743 0028 0001 2625 STATE RD 590 CLEARWATER FL 33759 $1,001,580 0029 0001 2625 STATE RD 590 CLEARWATER FL 33759 $113,914 $10,000 The Insured also refers to the following policy language cited by CJW Associates o/b/o American Coastal Insurance Company in its December 18, 2019, February 25, 2020, February 28, 2020, September 11, 2020, and October 5, 2020 letters to the Insureds: The specific policy language is as follows: AC SLC 03 14 FLORIDA - SINKHOLE LOSS COVERAGE A. The following is added to this Coverage Part as a Covered Cause of Loss. In the forms which address “specified causes of loss”, the following is added as a “specified cause of loss”. However, as a “specified cause of loss”, the following does not apply to the Additional Coverage – Collapse. “Sinkhole Loss”, meaning loss or damage to Covered Property when “structural damage” to the “covered building”, including the foundation, is caused by settlement or systematic weakening of the earth supporting the “covered building”, only if the settlement or systematic weakening results from contemporaneous movement or raveling of soils, sediments, or rock materials into subterranean voids created by the effect of water on a limestone or similar rock formation. CP 10 30 06 07 CAUSES OF LOSS – SPECIAL FORM as follows: A. Covered Causes Of Loss When Special is shown in the Declarations, Covered Causes of Loss means Risks Of Direct Physical Loss unless the loss is: 1. Excluded in Section B., Exclusions; or 2. Limited in Section C., Limitations; that follow. B. Exclusions 1. We will not pay for loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by any of the following. Such loss or damage is excluded regardless of any other cause or event that contributes concurrently or in any sequence to the loss. b. Earth Movement (4) Earth sinking (other than sinkhole collapse), rising or shifting including soil conditions which cause settling, cracking or other disarrangement of foundations or other parts of realty. Soil conditions include contraction, expansion, freezing, thawing, erosion, improperly compacted soil and the action of water under the ground surface. But if Earth Movement, as described in b.(1) through (4) above, results in fire or explosion, we will pay for the loss or damage caused by that fire or explosion. h. “Fungus”, Wet Rot, Dry Rot And Bacteria Presence, growth, proliferation, spread or any activity of "fungus", wet or dry rot or bacteria. But if "fungus", wet or dry rot or bacteria results in a "specified cause of loss", we will pay for the loss or damage caused by that "specified cause of loss". 2. We will not pay for loss or damage caused by or resulting from any of the following: d. (1) Wear and tear; (2) Rust or other corrosion, decay, deterioration, hidden or latent defect, or any quality in property that causes it to damage or (4) Settling, cracking, shrinking or expansion; 3. We will not pay for loss or damage caused by or resulting from any of the following, 3.a. through 3.c. But if an excluded cause of loss that is listed in 3.a. through 3.c. results in a Covered Cause of Loss, we will pay for the loss or damage caused by that Covered Cause of Loss destroy itself; c. Faulty, inadequate or defective: (1) Planning, zoning, development, surveying, siting; (2) Design, specifications, workmanship, repair, construction, renovation, remodeling, grading, compaction; (3) Materials used in repair, construction, renovation or remodeling; or (4) Maintenance; of part or all of any property on or off the described premises. CP 01 91 04 04 FLORIDA CHANGES – CONDOMINIUMS as follows: B. The following provisions applies to the Condominium Association insurance: Building section is replaced by the following: 2. But Building does not include: a. Floor coverings, wall coverings and ceiling coverings within individual units; FLORIDA CHANGES (AC 01 25 06 16) G. Loss Condition Duties In The Event Of Loss Or Damage is deleted and replaced by the following: 3. Duties In The Event Of Loss Or Damage a. You must see that the following are done in the event of loss or damage to Covered Property: (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. (7) As often as may be reasonably required, permit us to inspect the property proving the loss or damage and examine your books and records. 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. EXISTING DAMAGE EXCLUSION ENDORSEMENT (AC 0010 06 07) It is understood and agreed that: This policy is not intended to and does not provide coverage for any damages which occurred: 1. Prior to policy inception regardless of whether such damages were apparent at the time of the inception of this policy; or 2. Became apparent at a later date. It is also understood and agreed that: This policy is not intended to and does not provide coverage for any claims or damages arising out of: 1. Workmanship; 2. Repairs and / or lack of repairs; Arising from damage which occurred prior to policy inception. … This endorsement applies to all coverage under this policy COMMERCIAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS (CP 00 90 07 88) This Coverage Part is subject to the following conditions, the Common Policy Conditions and applicable Loss Conditions and Additional Conditions in Commercial Property Coverage Forms. H. POLICY PERIOD, COVERAGE TERRITORY Under this Coverage Part: 1. We cover loss or damage commencing: a. During the policy period shown in the Declarations; and
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

In addition to the above statutory and policy provisions alleged to have been violated, see also the following statutes and rules: 624.155(1)(a)1 Any person may bring a civil action against an insurer when such person is damaged: (a) by violation of any of the following provisions by the insurer: (1) Section 626.9541(1)(i), (o), or (x) 69B-220.201(3)(b) An adjuster shall treat all claimants equally. 69B-220.201(3)(b)(2) An adjuster shall adjust all claims strictly in accordance with the Insurance contract. 69B-220.201(3)(c) An adjuster shall not approach investigations, adjustments, and settlements in a manner prejudicial to the insured. 69B-220.201(3)(d) An adjuster shall make truthful and unbiased reports of the facts after making a complete investigation. 69B-220.201(3)(e) An adjuster shall handle every adjustment and settlement with honesty and integrity, and allow a fair adjustment or settlement to all parties without any compensation or remuneration to himself or herself except that to which he or she is legally entitled. 69B-220.201(3)(f) An adjuster, upon undertaking the handling of a claim, shall act with dispatch and due diligence in achieving a proper disposition of the claim. 69B-220.201(3)(k) An adjuster shall not undertake the adjustment of any claim concerning which the adjuster is not currently competent and knowledgeable as to the terms and conditions of the insurance coverage, or which otherwise exceeds the adjuster’s current expertise. 626.877 Every adjuster shall adjust or investigate every claim, damage, or loss made or occurring under an insurance contract, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract and of the applicable laws of this state. 626.878 An adjuster shall subscribe to the code of ethics specified in the rules of the department. The rules shall implement the provisions of this part and specify the terms and conditions of contracts, including a right to cancel, and require practices necessary to ensure fair dealing, prohibit conflicts of interest, and ensure preservation of the rights of the claimant to participate in the adjustment of claims. 626.9744(1) When a loss requires repair or replacement of an item or part, any physical damage incurred in making such repair or replacement which is covered and not otherwise excluded by the policy shall be included in the loss to the extent of any applicable limits. The insured may not be required to pay for betterment required by ordinance or code except for the applicable deductible, unless specifically excluded or limited by the policy. 626.9744(2) When a loss requires replacement of items and the replaced items do not match in quality, color, or size, the insurer shall make reasonable repairs or replacement of items in adjoining areas. In determining the extent of the repairs or replacement of items in adjoining areas, the insurer may consider the cost of repairing or replacing the undamaged portions of the property, the degree of uniformity that can be achieved without such cost, the remaining useful life of the undamaged portion, and other relevant factors. 627.70131(1)(a) Upon an insurer’s receiving a communication with respect to a claim, the insurer shall, within 14 calendar days, review and acknowledge receipt of such communication unless payment is made within that period of time or unless the failure to acknowledge is caused by factors beyond the control of the insurer which reasonably prevent such acknowledgment. If the acknowledgment is not in writing, a notification indicating acknowledgment shall be made in the insurer’s claim file and dated. A communication made to or by an agent of an insurer with respect to a claim shall constitute communication to or by the insurer. 627.70131(5)(a) Within 90 days after an insurer receives notice of an initial, reopened, or supplemental property insurance claim from a policyholder, the insurer shall pay or deny such claim or a portion of the claim unless the failure to pay is caused by factors beyond the control of the insurer which reasonably prevent such payment. Any payment of an initial or supplemental claim or portion of such claim made 90 days after the insurer receives notice of the claim, or made more than 15 days after there are no longer factors beyond the control of the insurer which reasonably prevented such payment, whichever is later, bears interest at the rate set forth in F.S. §55.03. Interest begins to accrue from the date the insurer receives notice of the claim. The provisions of this subsection may not be waived, voided, or nullified by the terms of the insurance policy. If there is a right to prejudgment interest, the insured shall select whether to receive prejudgment interest or interest under this subsection. Interest is payable when the claim or portion of the claim is paid. Failure to comply with this subsection constitutes a violation of this code. However, failure to comply with this subsection does not form the sole basis for a private cause of action. 627.4133(3) Claims on property insurance policies that are the result of an act of God may not be used as a cause for cancellation or nonrenewal, unless the insurer can demonstrate, by claims frequency or otherwise, that the insured has failed to take action reasonably necessary as requested by the insurer to prevent recurrence of damage to the insured property. 624.155(5) No punitive damages shall be awarded under this section unless the acts giving rise to the violation occur with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice and these acts are: (a) Willful, wanton, and malicious; (b) In reckless disregard for the rights of any insured; or (c) In reckless disregard for the rights of a beneficiary under a life insurance contract. FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES GIVING RISE TO THE VIOLATION In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the Public Trust. American Coastal Insurance Company (“American Coastal”) has breached this duty by its adjustment of the Insured’s claim of loss. American Coastal has failed to create and implement adequate guidelines for proper investigation to evaluate claims handling and for training and supervision of employees resulting in statutory violations as set forth above. American Coastal has failed and/or refused to thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigate and evaluate the Insured’s insurance claim for damages. To date—notwithstanding the Insured’s pleas for assistance, both through themselves and their representatives—American Coastal has refused to acknowledge and pay coverage for the Insured’s sinkhole claim. American Coastal has failed to promptly settle the Insured’s insurance claim when the obligation to settle the insurance claim had become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage, in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage. To date, notwithstanding the Insured’s pleas otherwise, American Coastal has continued to refuse and acknowledge its obligation to tender insurance monies due to the Insured’s covered sinkhole damages at Coachmen Creek. In addition to the foregoing, American Coastal has also committed the following with respect to its Insured, Coachman Creek Condo Association Inc.’s (“Coachman Creek”) claim: 1) failure to adjust and pay the claim(s); 2) failure to promptly and fully investigate the claim(s) by only investigating one fourth of the premises despite its statutory obligation to inspect the entire premises, and despite being asked in writing to investigate the entire premises; 3) failure to act in due diligence and good faith to resolve claim; 4) placing financial interest of insurer before that of policyholders and claimants; 5) failing to properly train, evaluate and manage adjusters; 6) looking for ways to deny coverage, pay less, delay payment and otherwise “low ball” or “stone wall” claim; 7) failing to pay use unbiased experts, and instead, using outcome oriented experts who have multi-million dollar relationships with carriers; The reasons for these shortcomings in American Coastal’s evaluation, may be attributed to improper training, supervision, and/or negligent hiring of its adjusters, agents, claims personnel, vendors, contractors and/or experts. Unfortunately, the Insured, Coachman Creek, has been subject to this improper adjustment of the claim by American Coastal who maintained a Property insurance policy No.: AMC-29347-05 (“The Policy”), with American Coastal for its property located at 2625 State Road 590, Clearwater, FL 33759 (“The Insured Property”). On or about February 19, 2019, upon learning of a potential claim against American Coastal, Coachman Creek immediately notified American Coastal in compliance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Initially, instead of hiring engineers and/or geologists in order to determine whether the insured property had been impacted by a sinkhole loss, as is required by Fla. Stat. 627.706, 627.707, 627.7072 and 627.7073, American Coastal failed to perform an appropriate structural evaluation of the property and instead kept demanding from its insured information that it, pursuant to statute, American Coastal had the burden of discovering. Upon receipt of a sinkhole claim, American Coastal is required by Florida law and the terms of the insurance policy to hire engineering and/or geological professionals to determine whether or not the insured property suffered a sinkhole loss. This investigation customarily includes the performance of a Horizontal Surface Survey, a Foundation Survey, a Wall Plumb Survey, a Load Path Identification Survey, a Soils Geotechnical Survey, and may include Ground Penetrating Radar, Floor Elevation Surveys, Hand Auger Borings, Hand-Cone Penetrometer Readings, Standard Penetration Test Borings and/or CPT Soundings. Ultimately, American Coastal retained Grindley Williams Engineering (“GWE”) to inspect and test the property, which is a biased, and outcome-oriented vendor who earns substantial income from and who works almost exclusively for insurance carriers such as American Coastal. Although American Coastal retained this firm to inspect the loss, the investigation and adjustment they asked Grindley Williams to perform was woefully deficient. American Coastal has a duty to find out and seek coverage. However, it incomprehensibly limited its inspection to only a handful of the 28 buildings at the property, and failed and/or refused to fully evaluate the entire premises or do a full structural evaluation at all of the buildings. Then despite discovering evidence of structural damage at buildings 5 and 28, instead of admitting the damage was related to sinkhole activity, or at least performing additional testing in order to rule out sinkhole activity, Grindley Williams just blamed excluded causes of loss for the problem. Specifically, it blamed the structural damage at these two buildings on “inadequate soil compaction, erosion, buried debris and clayey soils.” Another misstep by American Coastal, was ignoring and essentially “sticking its head in the sand” when it came to additional sinkhole data presented by another, third-party engineer, Florida Testing and Environmental, (“FTE”) who performed inspections on behalf of concerned Unit Owners at buildings 22 and 25, when presented with same during the respective policy period. Specifically, FTE found structural damage to the building, and then sinkhole activity present at Building 22, after having performed test pit excavations, and two standard penetration test (SPT) borings, both of which showed the sinkhole indicator of loss of drilling fluid circulation. With respect to Building 25, after having performed test pit excavations and two SPT borings, FTE found structural damage to the building believed to be caused by sinkhole activity due to the sinkhole indicator of a weight of rod (WOR) condition in the first SPT boring taken. Importantly these determinations were made within the relevant policy period – May 1, 2018 to May 1, 2019. As such, Coachman Creek, through its counsel, emailed American Coastal on March 11, 2019, and specifically requested that ALL buildings be tested by the carrier’s engineer for sinkhole activity and/or structural damage. American Coastal essentially refused this request and attempted to get the Insured to adjust its own claim. Based on the findings of its outcome-oriented expert, American Coastal then denied coverage on handful of buildings it did actually look at -- 2, 5, 21, 22, 23, 25 and 28, without performing sufficient investigations on those buildings (or doing anything at the rest of the Insured buildings at all) and in the face of evidence of sinkhole loss as presented by a third-party engineer. What is worse is that this finding left Coachman Creek high and dry, to fend for the damages themselves and spend significant monies out of pocket with respect to building 5 (which they had to come out of pocket and repair for safety reasons), particularly since SEI, Grindley and the City of Clearwater all presented concerns about this building’s safety! As Coachman Creek questioned American Coastal’s claims decision, especially in light of the fact that it never finished investigating the entire premises, Coachman Creek incurred the significant expense of retaining its own engineering firm, Structural Engineering and Inspections, Inc. (“SEI”) to inspect the insured property’s entire premises for structural damages potentially related to sinkhole activity and report their findings. Further, and most egregiously, American Coastal improperly cancelled/non-renewed the subject policy’s sinkhole coverage while the Insured had an open claim. It is an improper claims handling practice or cancel or non-renew an insured’s policy while they have a pending claim. This is because the of the fact that an open and pending claim prevents Insureds from obtaining new insurance or will result in insurance which is considerably more expensive and more limited than the existing coverage. This is not consistent with American Coastal’s duty to treat the Insured fairly, honestly and with due regard for its interest. Due to American Coastal’s improper claims investigation and subsequent denials, Coachman Creek filed its original Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation (“CRN”) September 9, 2022. As of the date of Coachman Creek’s original CRN filing, SEI had confirmed structural damages present at buildings 5, 7, 9, 10 11, and 12, and was in the process of inspecting the remaining buildings, which have now all been inspected. It was the Insured’s hope that after being presented with this additional evidence, American Coastal would reconsider its claims decision and work with its Insured on a resolution that involves acknowledging and paying for the covered damages. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. On September 9, 2022, the Insured’s counsel provided American Coastal with its letter of representation, request for documents related to the claim from American Coastal and request it agree to participate in Neutral Evaluation (which is mandatory once requested by either party). While American Coastal essentially ignored the Insured’s request to participate in Neutral Evaluation (in violation of Florida Statute), the parties subsequently agreed to participate in mediation. Mediation was held on December 27, 2022 and resulted in an impasse. Further attempts to participate in Neutral Evaluation were rejected by American Coastal. They insisted that even if they did go to Neutral Evaluation, it would only be in regards to a fourth of the buildings, which is not how the Neutral Evaluation process, pursuant to Fla. 627.7074, works. After months of attempting to amicably resolve this matter with American Coastal and its counsel, and after it continued to refuse to participate in Neutral Evaluation or otherwise reevaluate the claim, the Insured moved forward with its statutory obligation to file a Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation, and subsequently filed suit for Breach of Contract against American Coastal on or about December 6, 2023. Since the inception of litigation, American Coastal has continued to refuse to adjust the claim despite the fact its duty to do so continues after litigation. see State Farm Florida Insurance Company v. Lorenzo, 969 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008), Tristar Lodging, Inc. v. Arch Specialty Ins. Co., 434 F. Supp. 2d 1286, 1298 (M.D. Fla. 2006). Its refusal to continue to adjust the loss includes its continued refusal to inspect all buildings at the loss. On October 6, 2024, the Insured (through counsel) advised American Coastal of its intention to move forward incurring the cost of below ground sinkhole testing. The Insured requested American Coastal confirm that it did intend to perform testing for sinkhole activity per Florida Statutes §627.7072 and §627.7073. Despite follow up requests made on October 16, 2024, October 22, 2024, November 12, 2024, November 19, 2024, and November 27, 2024, the carrier did not substantively respond until December 2, 2024. In its December 2, 2024, letter it refused to perform the testing requested and claimed it “has complied with all applicable Florida Statutes related to investigating sinkhole claims and the investigations into those claims.” Despite American Coastal’s refusal to perform needed testing at the Insured Property, including SPT borings and Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR), Coachman Creek moved forward with the undertaking at a great out-of-pocket expense. During the testing on or about February 13, 2025, a depression opened up in the parking lot of Building 25. The Insured (through Counsel) immediately advised American Coastal’s counsel, Heather Fleming Koskinas, of the depression, provided photographic evidence of same, and began the process of remediation in order to protect the property from further damage. Counsel for American Coastal confirmed receipt and stated “advising the client now” minutes later. However, despite Ms. Koskinas notification to American Coastal, no action was taken by American Coastal, and no further response was received. On February 20, 2025, the Insured (through counsel) advised American Coastal that it had retained Helicon to repair the depression at building 25 at an initial invoice cost of $10,000 today, with an estimated total cost of $30,000. This repair contract from Helicon was based on a repair protocol prepared by SEI following Helicon’s inspection of the property and depression on February 14, 2025. Again, American Coastal failed to respond, despite this all being because of a sinkhole loss that they are supposed to have provided coverage for, but failed and refused to do so. On March 4, 2025, the Insured advised American Coastal (through counsel) of additional developments at the property. Following his monitoring of the repairs to building 25 that day of the property, Byron Anderson, P.E. advised that originally the SEI repair protocol called for 30 cubic yards of grout. After the first day of grouting the protocol was increased by SEI to 70 cubic yards of grout based on what the hole was taking in. Mr. Anderson then advised that 90 cubic yards had been used, and it may take upwards of 120 at the end of the day. Despite the Insured advising American Coastal of this significant development, no response was received. Instead, the Insured had to pay upwards of $60,000 in order to fill the sinkhole, which included NINE (9) full trucks of cement which had to be poured into the hole. Updates on these significant developments were provided on March 11, 2025 and on March 18, 2025. American Coastal did not do anything about it. Shortly after the March 18th email sent out by the Insured’s counsel, Coachman Creek advised that another hole had opened up behind Building 25. The Insured’s counsel immediately informed American Coastal of this new development. In response to these emails, counsel for American Coastal requested a phone call to discuss the case. However, instead of addressing the ongoing sinkhole damage to the property and the severity of the situation (that it has been avoiding paying coverage for now for over 5 years), American Coastal felt it was more of a priority to address the Insured’s written discovery responses. This is a blatant (and seemingly deliberate) disregard of the safety and welfare of the residents living at the Insured Property. Moreover, when faced with the strong possibility of having summary judgment entered against it based on clear and applicable Florida law and the policy it had with its Insured, instead of attempting to reach a resolution with its Insured, American Coastal filed its own “cross motion” for summary judgment in further defiance of its Insured’s interests. This is wrong and evidences an insurer who is only concerned with its bottom dollar as opposed to the health, safety, and financial welfare of its own policyholders. Insurance companies who cover Insureds for sinkhole loss in Florida (of the kind which Coachman Creek purchased coverage for in this case) are statutorily required to try and find and then rule out whether structural damage is occurring at the premises as a result of sinkhole activity. They are not permitted to arbitrarily spot check for sinkhole loss, and then bury their head in the sand with respect to a majority of the premises. If there was any doubt, Coachman Creek consulted with four sinkhole experts (two from SEI, and two more from other engineering firms who perform sinkhole investigations), and all four experts are in agreement that American Coastal should have commissioned its engineer to conduct structural evaluations and subsidence investigations throughout the entire premises. And if not from the beginning of the investigation without question, at the very minimum, once Coachman Creek requested in writing that the entire premises be tested. In addition to the $60,000 that Coachman Creek just recently had to pay to fill the dropout that opened up adjacent to Building 25, as a direct result of American Coastal’s blatant failures to properly investigate, adjust and pay the Insured’s claim, the Insured has absorbed over $350,000 in costs to conduct its own testing of the whole premises. The Insured has also paid between $50,000-$100,000 in emergency evaluations and repairs to Buildings 5, 13, 19, 22, 25, 26 and 28 due to American Coastal’s wrongful denial of coverage as to 5, 22, 25, and 28 (and failure to even investigate or adjust 13, 19 and 26). The Insured’s counsel has placed American Coastal’s counsel on notice of the ongoing problems at the Insured Property on numerous occasions. Counsel either receives no response, or if a response is provided, it is essentially something to the effect of “I have advised my client.” Evidently, “the client” (i.e., American Coastal) does not care because it continues to do nothing to resolve this matter. As of the date of this filing, American Coastal continues to stand by its deficient investigation and improper denial of the claim, despite the ongoing sinkhole damage to the property. American Coastal engages in this type of conduct consistently, and has certainly engaged in this type of conduct in the past in violation of Florida law, Ethical Requirements, and Industry Good Faith Claims Practice Standards. American Coastal has refused to provide coverage for the damages. As American Coastal must admit, it is implied within every insurance policy a duty of good faith and fair dealings. In an insurance contract, each party is prevented from interfering with the other’s right to benefit from the contract. The obligations of good faith and fair dealings encompass qualities of decency and humanity inherent in its responsibilities as a fiduciary. American Coastal is bound to conduct itself with the utmost good faith for the benefit of Coachman Creek. However, American Coastal has failed to comply with the obligations in connection with this claim and has never looked at the claim or the contract for insurance with good faith and fair dealing. Instead, American Coastal has looked for ways not to pay the claim in full and these actions have been to the detriment of Coachman Creek. The adjusters assigned to this claim have a duty to adjust and treat all claims equally. Since the beginning of this claim the representatives on behalf of American Coastal have approached this investigation in a manner prejudicial to its Insured. American Coastal is using either untrained or improperly trained adjusters in connection with this claim. American Coastal should have been adjusting the loss with its Insured but instead, it was looking for ways not to pay the claim and deny coverage. If American Coastal handles all the claims in the manner in which it handled Coachman Creek’s claim, then it is improperly handling all claims. American Coastal 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. American Coastal has failed and/or refused to thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigate and evaluate Coachman Creek’s insurance claim. American Coastal’s conduct has been reckless and unfair to Coachman Creek and has caused and continues to cause additional damages throughout the property. This is evidenced by the improper denial of the claim, relying on the opinions of biased and outcome-oriented engineers and consultants, and the failure of American Coastal to evaluate the claim in total. American Coastal has breached this duty for wrongly denying a claim that was bargained for at the time of contract formation and which Coachman Creek paid additional premiums for under the terms of the contract for insurance. Coachman Creek was and still is, forced to expend out of pocket monies to adjust its own insurance claim, e.g., sinkhole testing, retaining legal counsel and other experts to force American Coastal to honor its obligations under the insurance policy. Furthermore, Coachman Creek contends that American Coastal’s adjusters and/or representatives financially benefit by such wrongful conduct. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, American Coastal must: Create and implement adequate guidelines for proper investigation and evaluation as to claims handling and for the training and supervision of employees, which will avoid future statutory violations as set forth above, and to avoid this from occurring in the future; American Coastal must create and implement adequate guidelines for the proper investigation and evaluation of these types of claims, and for the training and supervision of employees with regard to these types of claims to ensure American Coastal’s claims handling procedures with regard to these types of losses are adequate to stop further Insureds from being treated unfairly and wrongfully; American Coastal must assist Coachman Creek in mitigating their damages; American Coastal must immediately tender all undisputed insurance proceeds to Coachman Creek; American Coastal must act fairly and honestly towards the Insured and with due regard for their interests in attempting to settle Coachman Creek’s claim; American Coastal must immediately tender all insurance monies due and owing to Coachman Creek that would reasonably place them back to their pre-loss condition pursuant to the relevant policy provisions and coverage provided therein; American Coastal must pay Coachman Creek the fair value of its insurance claim, applicable Attorney fees, and applicable Statutory Interest The concept of insurance is that it is the insurer's granting of timely and prompt indemnity or security against a contingent loss. Fla. Stat. § 624.02 defines insurance as a contract whereby one undertakes to indemnify another or pay or allow specified amount or a determinable benefit upon 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. American Coastal has failed to comply with its duty to indemnify the Insured. American Coastal has failed and/or refused to timely adjust, repair, and pay the Insured’s insurance claim for damages. American Coastal has refused and/or failed to pay any insurance proceeds to date owed to the Insured as required by the policy and law. Refusal and/or failure to pay or/and settle the Insured’s claim when under all the circumstances it could have and should have done so had it acted fairly and honestly towards the Insured is wrong. The actions taken by American Coastal and/or its representatives in the handling and adjustment of the Insured’s claim were willful, wanton, and in disregard for the rights of its Insured and occur with such a frequency as to indicate a general business practice, and further, are in violation of Florida Statutes §624.155 and §626.9541. The Insured can prove that this has become a general business practice on the part of American Coastal upon performing a review of other Civil Remedy Notices (CRNS) (including those filed on behalf of Royal Arms, and others). In the Royal Arms CRNS, CRN Nos. 468164, 468166, 468173, counsel for the Insured pointed out that American Coastal hired the same experts and same counsel as they did on Coachman Creek’s claim, and failed to look for covered damages (precisely what it has done here to the detriment of Coachman Creek). In addition, there was CRN No. 553561 filed on behalf of Summit Place Association where American Coastal similarly did not do sufficient subsurface testing and then hired the same counsel as it has done here to wrongfully dig in its heels against Coachman Creek. Based on the foregoing actions and omissions, American Coastal has engaged in wrongful claims handling conduct, including but not limited to, the following: 1. Improper claim denial; 2. Improper claim delays; 3. Improperly cancelling the policy while the claim was open and pending; 4. Not conducting a full and fair investigation of the Insured’s claim; 5. Looking for ways to deny recovery to the Insured’s; 6. Looking for ways to delay recovery to the Insured’s; 7. Overlooking covered damages to the Insured Property upon an initial review of the loss and damages; 8. Failing to pay the necessary amounts due and owing to restore the Insured Property to its pre-loss condition; 9. Not adjusting the claim and not evaluating the loss properly, promptly, and fairly so as to provide full and prompt indemnity to its Insured. 10. Failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of insurance claims; 11. Failing to pay the requisite monies owed for the Insured’s loss. 12. Not training, supervising or managing adjusters and independent contractors properly so that prompt and full payments are made, but rather placing the company’s interests before the policyholders’ interests by attempting to deny or minimize payments owed; 13. Using outcome-oriented and biased experts in the evaluation of the claim and damages; 14. Performing an improper, woefully deficient and incomplete inspection of the Insured’s buildings (by only investigating a handful of the buildings), and failing to investigate the entire Insured premises in an effort to circumvent finding coverage; 15. Failing to adhere to both its contractual obligations and statutory duties (particularly the specialized obligations under Florida’s sinkhole statutes) to properly inspect the entirety of the Insured Property for sinkhole activity and structural damage; 16. Ignoring evidence of covered damages to over half of the buildings once presented same by SEI; 17. Establishing a general business practice of delaying, denying and defending these types of claims as exhibited by other similar Civil Remedy Notices filed where American Coastal hired the same (or similar) outcome oriented experts to perform insufficient investigations, and then hired the same counsel to justify its inexcusable behavior; 18. Establishing severity control initiatives and otherwise establishing a culture of not fully and promptly paying claims following losses. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, American Coastal Insurance Company must: Tender the full amount of insurance monies owed to the Insured for the loss and resulting damage to the Insured Property pursuant to the estimates that have been provided by SEI, above-ground damages with reduction for repair expenses already incurred, and reimbursement of the Insured’s investigation, repair and remediation costs. A copy of this form has been submitted to the FDFS and has been printed out and mailed to the following parties providing them notice of the filing of the Civil Remedy Notice: American Coastal Insurance Company., via Certified Mail, R.R.R. Tamela Hughey American Coastal Insurance Company., via Certified Mail, R.R.R. Claims Dept., American Coastal Insurance Company U.S. Mail Heather M. Fleming Koskinas, Esq., Traub Lieberman, o/b/o American Coastal Insurance Company, via email Coachman Creek Condo Association Inc, via email
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
courtney@danddlaw.com 10-14-2025 Subsequent to the filing of the subject CRN, SEI completed its grouting of the depression at building 25. At the time of filing the CRN, 9 trucks of grout had been used. Upon information and belief the total amount of grout used after below ground repairs were completed totaled 12 trucks, or 120 cubic yards.
nharley@tlsslaw.com 07-08-2025 July 8, 2025 Via Electronic Mail Only Erin E. Dunnavant Danahy & Dunnavant erin@dandlaw.com courtney@danddlaw.com RE: Insureds : Coachman Creek Condominium Association, Inc. Claim Number : 4160072 Filing Number : 820504 Filing Date : May 9, 2025 Dear Mrs. Dunnavant: This letter will respond to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (“Notice”) assigned filing number 820504, that was filed by your office on behalf of Coachman Creek Condominium Association, Inc. (“the Association”) against American Coastal Insurance Company (“AmCoastal”). As an initial matter, it is unclear whether the Notice correctly identifies the claim at issue. The Notice references claim number 4160072 and policy number AMC-29347-05. However, the referenced claim number is associated with policy number AMC-29347-04. Additionally, the Notice does not satisfy the statutory purpose, which is to allow AmCoastal an opportunity to “cure” the alleged violation. Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, 753 So.2d 1278, 1283-1284 (Fla. 2000) (“Pursuant to the statute, there is no remedy until the notice is sent by the insured and the insurer has the opportunity to ‘cure’ the violation”). The Notice demands that AmCoastal pay “the full amount of insurance monies owed . . . pursuant to the estimates that have been provided by SEI, . . . and reimbursement of the Insured’s investigation, repair, and remediation costs.” This suggests that additional amounts are owed beyond what is provided in the SEI estimates. Without identifying the actual amount alleged to be owed, the Notice has not provided an opportunity for AmCoastal to “cure.” The Heritage Corporation of South Florida v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, P.A., 580 F.Supp. 2d 1294 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (civil remedy notice did not satisfy condition precedent for filing bad faith suit when notice was not “sufficiently specific to allow [the insurer] an opportunity to cure the alleged violations”). Therefore, the Notice did not serve its intended purpose and is invalid. As for the facts of the claim, the Notice does not accurately reflect AmCoastal’s investigation nor its attempts to find coverage under the policy. AmCoastal denies each and every one of the alleged violation and responds to the Notice’s specific allegations as follows: The Notice alleges that AmCoastal failed to hire engineers and/or geologists upon receipt of the claim as required by statute and instead demanded information from the Association. This is false for several reasons. First, while Florida Statutes do strictly govern the investigation of sinkhole claims, there is no requirement that an insurer immediately retain an engineer/geologist before performing an initial investigation. In fact, the pertinent statute provides exactly the opposite. Upon receipt of a claim for sinkhole loss, an insurer must inspect the premises to determine if there is structural damage that is result of sinkhole activity. § 627.707(1), Fla. Stat. If the insurer confirms structural damage or that the damage is consistent with a sinkhole loss, then the insurer must engage a professional engineer or geologist to conduct further testing. § 627.707(2). Thus, the plain language of the statute envisions the insurer conducting an initial investigation prior to retaining an professional engineer/geologist. Here, AmCoastal promptly retained a professional engineer to investigate the claimed sinkhole activity. On February 15, 2019, the Association provided AmCoastal with reports of sinkhole activity in buildings 22 and 25. By March 5, 2019, AmCoastal had retained Grindley Williams Engineering to investigate the claimed sinkhole activity and began attempting to schedule an inspection with the Association. Next, the Notice alleges that Grindley Williams Engineering is a “biased, and outcome-oriented vendor.” The Notice makes these claims without any factual bases or support. Such conclusory and undeveloped claims are counter to the express terms of § 627.155(3)(b) which requires the Notice to “state with specificity” the alleged facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation. The Notice also falsely claims that AmCoastal ignored the report of Florida Testing and Environmental (“FTE”). Again, this is patently false. The FTE report was reviewed by AmCoastal and afterwards it retained Grindley Williams for its investigation of the property. AmCoastal is under no obligation, whether contractual or statutory, to accept wholesale the findings of the FTE report without performing its own investigation. Moving on, the Notice alleges that AmCoastal did not perform “sufficient investigations” and ignored claims of damage in certain buildings. This too is inaccurate. After receiving the Association’s claim, to better understand the damage present at the property, AmCoastal conducted an Examination Under Oath of Neil Goodless, who was the treasurer for the Association. Mr. Goodless testified that the Association sent questionnaires to unit owners regarding the damage and that and only seven (7) buildings – number 2, 5, 21, 22, 23, 25, and 28 - were reported to have suffered damage. Based upon this information, AmCoastal conducted a statutorily compliant investigation into those seven buildings. While AmCoastal did receive a correspondence from the Association dated September 9, 2022 with written reports by SEI regarding buildings 5, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12; those reports reflected damage that was observed outside the time frame of AmCoastal’s policy period. Specifically, the reports from SEI reflect that all observed damage was documented in 2022. AmCoastal has not insured the property since 2019. The Notice goes on to allege that AmCoastal “essentially ignored” the Association’s request to participate in Neutral Evaluation. This is a false characterization. AmCoastal responded to the Association’s request by stating AmCoastal “would be willing to participate in the neutral evaluation process, after having an opportunity to review the additional SEI reports.” After the parties’ counsel conferred, it was agreed that the parties would attend mediation rather than neutral evaluation. Next, the Notice focuses on a series of incidents involving a “depression” on the property. These incidents allegedly occurred throughout February and March of 2025 – six years after AmCoastal stopped insuring the property. The Notice then makes much of a telephone conversation between the parties’ counsel, claiming that AmCoastal and its counsel were more concerned with the Association’s discovery responses than these depressions at the property. First, the discovery that AmCoastal is seeking is directly related to the condition of the property. Therefore, by requesting responses to the discovery, AmCoastal is not ignoring the Association’s concerns with the property. Rather, it is attempting to gather information regarding the condition of the property during the time that AmCoastal still provided coverage. Next, AmCoastal properly investigated the Association’s claimed losses that were reported as occurring during the time it provided coverage. AmCoastal has not insured the property for six years and the newly claimed “depression” in 2025 should therefore be reported to the Associations’ current carrier(s). The remainder of the Notice’s allegations equally lack merit. Contrary to the Notice’s contention, it is not “wrong” for AmCoastal to file its own motion for summary judgment; as evidenced by the multitude of cases in Florida where summary judgment has been granted in an insurer’s favor. The allegations contained in other Civil Remedy Notices which are referenced by the Association are just that – allegations. Additionally, the facts and circumstances of each claim are unique. As such, the other Civile Remedy Notices cited by the Association have no bearing on this case. In conclusion, AmCoastal conducted a statutorily compliant sinkhole investigations at the buildings that were reported as having suffered damage in AmCoastal’s policy period. Those buildings are 2, 5, 21, 22, 23, 25, and 28. While AmCoastal has received reports written by SEI related to other buildings, only building 5 was determined to have suffered damage during AmCoastal’s policy period. A review of the reports from SEI, reflect all observed damage was documented in 2022, three years after AmCoastal stopped providing coverage. There are no facts to support any allegations of bad faith during the handling of this claim. AmCoastal complied with the policy of insurance with regard to the handling of the Insured’s loss. AmCoastal has in place guidelines and procedures designed for the proper investigation and evaluation of claims. They train and supervise their employees to treat every policyholder and claim with professionalism and in good faith. Their actions have been prompt and thorough, and the investigation conducted in good faith. AmCoastal has fully complied with the insurance policy and Florida law in connection with this claim. Therefore, the allegations contained in the Notice are denied in their entirety. Sincerely, /s/ Heather M. Fleming Koskinas ____________________________ C. RYAN JONES HEATHER M. FLEMING KOSKINAS
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