Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     820956
Filing Accepted:  5/13/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
GARRISON & GLENN A PARTNERSHIP   First Name  
Street Address * 1215 BAKER STREET
City, State Zip * PLANT CITY, FL 33563
Email Address * DRWILLIAMJGARRISON@YAHOO.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   GARRISON & GLENN A PARTNERSHIP   First Name  
Policy # * BPG62171 Claim #* 01-008-207424
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* MARVIN First Name * JOHN Initial A
Street Address* 360 CENTRAL AVENUE #1570
City, State Zip* SAINT PETERSBURG , FL 33701
Email Address * JOHN@PIPASLAW.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   MAIN STREET AMERICA PROTECTION INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 13026
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* LYNN URZENDOWSKI, ALL ADJUSTERS, SUPERVISORS, MANAGEMENT AND IN-DIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH OR RETAINED BY MAIN STREET AMERICA PROTECTION INSURANCE COMPANY IN THIS CLAIM.
Type of Insurance * Commercial Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
Claim Denial
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Unfair Trade Practice
Other : Failure to Properly Investigate Claim and with Due Regard to Insured's Interest
Other : Failure to Pay the Claim in Full
* 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)(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.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

RELEVANT POLICY LANGUAGE The specific policy language that is believed to be relevant to the violations includes, but is not limited to, the following: See Subject Policy: Main Street America Protection Insurance Company No.: BPG62171 loss payment provision, policy definitions, and policy exclusions section. A. COVERAGE We will pay for direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property at the premises described in the Declarations caused by or resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss. 1. Covered Property Covered Property includes Buildings as described in Paragraph a. below . . . . a. Buildings, meaning the buildings and structures at the premises described in the Declarations . . . . 3. Covered Causes Of Loss (5) the interior of any building of structure caused by or resulting from rain, snow, sleet, ice, sand or dust, whether driven by wind or not, unless: (a) the building or structure first sustains damage by a Covered Cause of Loss to its roof or walls through which the rain, snow, sleet, ice or dust enters. 5. Loss Payment In the event of loss or damage covered by this policy: a. At our option we will either: (1) pay the value of lost or damaged property; (2) pay the cost of repairing or replacing the lost or damaged property (3) take all or any part of the property at an agreed appraised value (4) repair, rebuild, or replace the property with other property of like kind and quality subject to Paragraph d.(1)(d) below. FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE SECTIONS VIOLATED 69B-220.201(3) – Code of Ethics. The work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. An adjuster shall put the duty for fair and honest treatment of the claimant above the adjuster’s own interests in every instance. The following are standards of conduct that define ethical behavior, and shall constitute a code of ethics that shall be binding on all adjusters: 69B-220.201(3)(b) – An adjuster shall treat all claimants equally. 69B-220.201(3)(b)1. – An adjuster shall not provide favored treatment to any claimant. 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, integrity, and allow a fair adjustment or settlement to all parties without any remuneration to himself except that to which he 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)(m) – An adjuster shall not knowingly fail to advise a claimant of the claimant’s claim rights in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract and of the applicable laws of this state. An adjuster shall exercise care not to engage in the unlicensed practice of law as prescribed by the Florida Bar. 69B-220.201(3)(o) – 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.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Insured's Address: 1215 Baker Street, Plant City, FL 33563 Insurer’s Address: 4601 Touchton Road East, Suite 3400, Jacksonville, FL 32246 This complaint is made on behalf of Garrison & Glenn A Partnership (“Insured”) and against Main Street America Protection Insurance Company (“Main Street”). In consideration of the premium paid to it by the Insured, Main Street issued to the Insured an insurance policy, Policy No.: BPG62171 (the “Policy”). On or about October 9, 2024, while the Policy was in full force and effect, the Insured suffered a hurricane loss to the property located at 1215 Baker Street, Plant City, FL 33563. On or about October 14, 2024, the Insured timely submitted a claim to Main Street for hurricane damage sustained to the above-referenced property. The Insured provided all documentation in their possession and allowed inspections of the property for Main Street to investigate and provide a claim determination. The Insured fully complied and cooperated with Main Street following the loss and therefore satisfied its duties under the policy. However, Main Street and its adjusters have failed to act in good faith in making the claim determination. Main Street and its adjuster Lynn Urzendowski, denied the claim by claiming the damage to the property was the result of flood. As a result, the Insured was forced to hire Kelly Coyle with Fairwinds Construction Services, LLC, to provide photos of the damage and estimate for repairs in the amount of $313,699.42. Despite being provided a copy of this estimate, which clearly contradicts Main Street’s unilateral assessment of the loss, Main Street refuses to remit all proceeds due and owing to the Insured. Since the loss occurred, Main Street’s strategy has been to prolong and delay the fair adjustment of the Insured’s claim, which Main Street has collected a premium on a policy that was designed to protect the Insured. The one sided actions by Main Street can only be viewed as an attempt to pressure the Insured into either dropping the claim or settling it for less than its fair value. As a result of Main Street’s denial, the Insured was forced to retain James Funderburk, P.E., with Applied Engineering & Geosciences, LLC to investigate the loss and prepare a neutral engi-neering report. On May 2, 2025, Mr. Funderburk furnished his opinions regarding the loss and expressly stated the damage to the property was caused by wind damage to the roof and wind damage to the front door which allowed water to intrude into the property. Mr. Funderburk further opined that the damage was not caused in any way by flood. On or about May 2, 2025, counsel for the insured provided a copy of the engineering report to Main Street and Lynn Urzendowski with a good faith request to reconsider its denial of the In-sured’s claim. On May 6, 2025, Main Street and Lynn Urzendowski provided a letter “standing on” its denial of the claim by reason of flood. This denial is evidence of several violations of Florida law, including Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. Had Main Street and Lynn Urzendowski investigated the claim in good faith, by reviewing the engineering report, they would have been able to ascertain that the damages to the property were caused by wind. Main Street and Lynn Urzendowski further violated Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), by 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. In their May 6, 2025 letter, Main Street and Lynn Urzendowski fail to provide any reasonable explanation in writing to the insured as to the basis for their denial besides baldly asserting that the damage was caused by flood. Finally, Main Street and Lynn Urzendowski’s continued denial of the claim despite being furnished estimates, photo reports, and expert engineering reports demonstrates violation of Fla. Stat. 624.155(1)(b)(1), by 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. Main Street was afforded a complete opportunity to investigate the loss, but conducted a limited and inadequate investigation. As a result of this limited and inadequate investigation, driven by the desire of Main Street to avoid developing evidence that significant insurance proceeds are owed by it to its Insured, Main Street did not pay its Insured what the Insured is rightfully entitled to under the insurance policy. In addition to Main Street improperly investigating the claim, Main Street improperly interpreted its policy so that it could avoid paying insurance proceeds it owes under the policy. The combination of these acts combined to cause damage to the Insured by way of the Insured having to expend additional resources to collect insurance proceeds that are rightfully owed, loss of use of funds, and the corresponding damage caused by that loss of use of funds, and interest. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, Main Street America Protection Insurance Company must pay the Insured's claim in the amount of $313, ,699.42.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
tiyarollelaw@gmail.com 05-22-2025 LAW OFFICE OF REBECCA WOLTJER ALL ATTORNEYS AND STAFF ARE EMPLOYEES OF AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE CO., S.I. NOT A LEGAL PARTNERSHIP OR PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION PO BOX 77055 MADISON, WISCONSIN 53707 TELEPHONE: 800-692-6326 FACSIMILE: (844) 556-7209 Direct Dial No.: (305) 763-7321. EMAIL: tiya.rolle@amfam.com May 22, 2025 Garrison & Glenn A Partnership c/o John A Marvin 360 Central Avenue #1570 Saint Petersburg, FL 33701 john@pipaslaw.com Re: Civil Remedy Notice Claim No.: 01-008-207424 Date of Loss: 10/14/2024 Insureds: Garrison & Glenn A Partnership Policy No.: BPG62171 Dear John A Marvin, We are in receipt of your Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (hereinafter “Notice”). Main Street America Protection Insurance Company (“MSA”) Insurance Company responds to the substance of your Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations as follows: This correspondence will serve as the response of MSA to the Notice, DFS number 820956. MSA hereby responds to the factual assertions set forth in the Notice without waiving any rights under Florida law to object to the legal deficiencies and inadequacies of the Notice. In the Civil Remedy Notice, you have asserted the following as the reasons for filing the Notice – (1) Claim Delay, (2) Claim Denial, (3) Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer, (4) Unfair Trade Practice, (5) Failure to Properly Investigate Claim and with Due Regard to Insured’s Interest, and (6) Failure to Pay the Claim in Full. You have also cited several sections of the Florida Statutes alleging, in part, that MSA has acted in bad faith and failed to settle the claim promptly. These allegations are broad and unspecified, to which a specific and detailed response is impossible given the vagueness of the allegations. Notwithstanding, MSA categorically denies these allegations both as to any general practice and with regard to this particular claim. Without waiving any rights under Florida law regarding the deficiencies and inadequacies of the Notice, MSA hereby responds to the assertions set forth in the Notice as follows: Response to Reason for Notice You state that the reasons for the Notice are due to the following: (1) Claim Delay, (2) Claim Denial, (3) Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer, (4) Unfair Trade Practice, (5) Failure to Properly Investigate Claim and with Due Regard to Insured’s Interest, and (6) Failure to Pay the Claim in Full. MSA responds by stating that these allegations are without basis and are therefore denied. MSA further states that the alleged 10/14/24 loss was first reported on October 14, 2024. The alleged loss was investigated, an inspection of the property was conducted, and issued its coverage decision. Response to Statutory Provisions Allegedly Violated The Civil Remedy Notice statute requires that a complainant “indicate all statutory provisions alleged to have been violated,” and you have listed several Florida Statutes. These allegations are overbroad and non-specific, apparently based upon conjecture or speculation to which a response is impossible given the uncertainty of the allegations. Notwithstanding, MSA categorically denies each alleged violations of statutes or rules asserted by you, both as to any general practice and with regard to this specific claim, as well. With respect to the statutes cited in this section of the Notice, MSA denies having violated the referenced statutes and responds to each of the alleged violations as follows. §624.155(1)(b)(1) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have been done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests. This allegation is denied. MSA has both a duty and a right to fully investigate this loss, which it did. MSA responds by stating that this allegation is without basis and therefore denied. Following the notice of loss, MSA properly performed its investigation and issued its coverage decision. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. This allegation is denied. MSA has both a duty and a right to fully investigate this loss, which it did. MSA responds by stating that this allegation is without basis and therefore denied. Following the notice of loss, MSA properly performed its investigation and issued its coverage decision. §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. This allegation is denied. MSA has both a duty and a right to fully investigate this loss, which it did. MSA responds by stating that this allegation is without basis and therefore denied. Following the notice of loss, MSA properly performed its investigation and issued its coverage decision. The Notice Fails to Reference Specific Policy Language The statutory provision governing Civil Remedy Notices requires complainants to “[b]riefly reference the specific policy language that is relevant to the violation, if any.” §624.155(3)(b)4, Fla. Stat. The Notice filed on your behalf fails to cite to a policy provision providing the specific language relevant to the violation. Essentially, you cite no policy language that supports any of the allegations made against MSA. A detailed and specific response to the cited policy language is impossible, given the vagueness of the allegations cited in the Notice. Notwithstanding, MSA has both a duty and a right to fully investigate this loss, which it did. MSA acted immediately upon Notice of the complainant’s claim. Response to Facts/Circumstances Cited as Giving Rise to Alleged Violation The governing statute requires Civil Remedy Notices to “state with specificity . . . [t]he facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.” Fla. Stat. §624.155(3)(b)2. The Notice contains a section requiring the following: “To enable the insurer to investigate and resolve your claim, describe the facts and circumstances giving rise to the insurer’s violation as you understand them at this time.” However, the Notice lists alleged violations that are vague, overbroad and unsubstantiated that MSA is precluded from being able to respond in any specific manner. Nevertheless, MSA asserts that all actions that have been taken in responding to your claim have been performed properly, in good faith and for the purpose of reaching a fair and appropriate claim decision. MSA therefore denies all allegations set forth as the “facts and circumstances giving rise to the violations” in the Notice. MSA denies it has engaged in bad faith conduct in this matter. MSA denies any undue delay in adjusting the claim. MSA promptly and timely responded to the loss Notice and report of claim, retained an adjuster to assess the damages, and promptly began its investigation of the claim. MSA denies any allegation that it did not adopt or implement standards for proper investigation of the claim. MSA stands by its adjustment and investigative practices generally and the adjustment and investigation of this claim specifically. MSA has acted properly, promptly and in accordance with the terms of the policy of insurance and applicable law in the investigation of this claim. MSA asserts that all actions taken have been made in good faith and for the purpose of fair, equitable and timely resolution of this matter. MSA has acted appropriately at all times regarding the handling of this claim. MSA has not violated any applicable statutory provisions in relation to this claim and expressly denies all of the allegations set forth as the “facts and circumstances giving rise to the violations.” Conclusion MSA promptly investigated the claim, and contrary to the allegations in the Notice, the facts show that MSA has consistently complied with all legal and professional standards for the investigation and adjustment of this claim. MSA investigated and evaluated your claim pursuant to the policy of insurance and subject to the policy limitations, exclusions, forms and endorsements applicable to the policy and in accordance with Florida law. Notwithstanding the deficiencies in the Notice, MSA denies it violated the statutes cited in the Notice. MSA hereby denies each and every allegation contained in the Notice, either explicitly or implicitly, and denies any wrongdoing in the handling of the subject claim. MSA has acted fairly and with due diligence throughout the entire investigation and handling of this claim. To the extent that this response does not fully address and respond to the allegations set forth in the Notice, such deficiency is the direct result of the lack of specificity and the overall vague nature of the allegations contained therein. Contrary to the allegations in the Notice, MSA has fully complied with its obligations under Florida Statutes and the policy of insurance with regard to the investigation and adjustment of this claim. MSA categorically denies all allegations contained in the Notice. In sum, MSA has evaluated this claim in good faith and all allegations of violation are statutorily deficient and without merit. I trust that the foregoing, without waiver of arguments regarding the lack of validity of the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations, adequately addresses any concerns that the insureds may have regarding this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned if you require more information. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Tiya Rolle Tiya Rolle, 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