Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     823132
Filing Accepted:  5/22/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
PHILIPSON   First Name   JON AND LESLEY
Street Address * C/O STEPHEN BAGGE, ESQ. 712 S. OREGON AVE.
City, State Zip * TAMPA, FL 33606
Email Address * SBAGGE@CAREYOMALLEY.COM
Complainant Type: * Third Party
Insured
Last/Business Name*   FORREST PARK DEVELOPMENT, LLC   First Name  
Policy # * ATN2015791 Claim #* 73399
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* BAGGE First Name * STEPHEN Initial
Street Address* 712 S. OREGON AVE
City, State Zip* TAMPA , FL 33606
Email Address * SBAGGE@CAREYOMALLEY.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   UNITED SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 12537
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* LIZ DEL ROSARIO
Type of Insurance * Commercial Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
* 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.
* 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 subject policy requires that the insurer provide coverage "because of...property damage," and has policy limits of $1,000,000 per occurrence.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

The carrier was made aware that the claimants, Lesley and Jon Philipson, asserted claims in excess of the policy limits against the insured in 2023. The carrier was advised in January 2024 that the structure on which the insured had performed work needed to be demolished due to the insured’s negligence. Although aware of the claims, the carrier immediately retained an expert to inspect the structure solely on its own behalf—rather than on behalf of the insured. The carrier was also advised of the possible need to place third parties on notice. After suit was filed in May 2024, the carrier was promptly informed of the lawsuit but inexplicably delayed in hiring counsel, seeking an inspection on the insured’s behalf, or putting third party defendants on notice. When counsel was finally retained, the carrier apparently failed to advise counsel about the demolition or the need for an inspection. With the carrier’s knowledge and authorization, its retained counsel moved in August 2024, on behalf of the insured, for a court order requiring the claimants to delay demolition of the house based on alleged lack of notice and resulting prejudice so that an inspection could be performed and notice provided to third parties—steps the carrier could have taken eight months earlier. The carrier’s inactivity and failure to inform defense counsel were nothing more than hard ball tactics intended to pressure the claimants and delay resolution. This failure prejudiced the insured because the claimants are now seeking sanctions for the completely avoidable delay caused by the order prohibiting demolition of the property. In addition, the delay has increased the insured’s exposure, as prejudgment interest continues to accrue. Despite knowing well before suit that the insured faced exposure in excess of the policy limits, the carrier never proactively sought to resolve the claim. The carrier, through counsel, did not request a demand from the claimants until shortly before the mediation scheduled for May 20, 2025. On May 6, 2025, the insured’s counsel received a report from the claimants’ counsel showing that one component of the claimants’ damages—the cost to rebuild their home plus prejudgment interest—far exceeded the $1,000,000 policy limits; the total was approximately $2.35 million. On May 14, 2025, the insured’s counsel received supplemental preliminary damages information for mediation purposes indicating that the insured’s exposure was at least $6.25 million, inclusive of actual damages, legal fees, and prejudgment interest. This figure is conservative, as it is driven largely by the cost to rebuild the Philipson home as it stood in 2020, using 2020 cost data. However, as a practical reality, the Philipsons were considerably delayed in their rebuilding efforts as a direct consequence of the insured’s conduct, and the true cost to rebuild the Philipson home as it stood is really much higher due to significant increases in construction costs between 2020 and present, with per square footage construction costs doubling. Accounting for these increased costs, the Philipsons’ actual damages are likely in the $7 to $8 million range. On May 20, 2025, the parties reached an impasse at mediation because the carrier granted insufficient settlement authority, dooming the session. Another mediation is scheduled for June 13, 2025. It is unclear whether the carrier will attend with sufficient authority — namely, authorization to tender the policy limits. No other mutually available mediation dates exist with the mediator before trial, which is anticipated in about three months. As of the upcoming June 13, 2025, mediation date, the carrier will have possessed the claimants’ damages information for a month and their initial rebuild estimate for approximately six weeks. The insured’s liability is indisputable, and the insured faces exposure far in excess of the policy limits. There is no legitimate basis to limit or deny coverage, because the damages all arise from physical damage to work that was not the insured’s work—specifically, the required demolition of the Philipson home, a pre existing structure, which was not the work of the insured, as it existed prior to the insured being involved in the project. Any attempt by the carrier to focus first on obtaining settlements from third parties at the upcoming mediation, instead of settling the claims against the insured, will further prejudice the insured, as there is no other opportunity to mediate before trial. Such conduct, which places the carrier’s financial interests ahead of the insured’s, would constitute additional bad faith, particularly because the carrier can pursue third parties after settling the claims against the insured. All of the foregoing violates Fla. Stat. § 624.155(1)(b)(1): the carrier is 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 the insured’s interests. The only way for the carrier to cure its past bad faith conduct is to authorize an immediate tender of the policy limits. Rest assured, the carrier will be held accountable if it refuses to do so. The insured faces considerable liability in the form of actual damages, plus punitive damages, which will be several times the actual damages. Under Florida law, the carrier will be exposed to extra contractual liability for the entire judgment against the insured regardless of the policy limits or any exclusions for punitive damages. This is the carrier’s last opportunity to protect itself and the insured from exposure exceeding $20 million. Any further delay, refusal to tender the policy limits, or unsupported rationales for refusing to settle will constitute additional evidence of bad faith.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
Chris.Cole@phelps.com 07-08-2025 Phelps Dunbar LLP 100 South Ashley Drive Suite 2000 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone 813 472 7550 Fax 813 472 7570 Bret M. Feldman Partner bret.feldman@phelps.com Direct 813 472 7879 July 8, 2025 VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION Florida Department of Financial Services Division of Consumer Services Civil Remedy Section Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32299-0322 Re: Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation Company: United Specialty Insurance Company Insured: Forrest Park Development, LLC Complainants: Jon and Lesley Philipson Policy No.: ATN2015791 DFS File No.: 823132 Accepted by DFS: May 22, 2025 To Whom It May Concern: We write on behalf of United Specialty Insurance Company (“USIC”), which provided commercial general liability coverage to Forrest Park Development, LLC (“FPD”) under Policy No. ATN2015791 for the policy period of January 24, 2020 to January 24, 2021 (the “Policy”). The Policy provides commercial general liability coverage to FPD subject to the Policy’s terms, conditions, limitations, definitions, and exclusions therein. We write on USIC’s behalf in response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations File Number 823132 (“the Notice”) that attorney Stephen Bagge, Esq. filed with the Department of Financial Services (“the Department”) on behalf of Jon and Lesley Philipson (the “Complainant”) regarding their tender for policy limits and the subsequent suit filed by the Complainant styled, Jon M. Philipson and Lesley Rudolph Philipson v. Forrest Park Development, LLC, et. al., in the Sixth Judicial Circuit, in and for Pinellas County, Case No. 24-002108-CI (the “Lawsuit”). The Lawsuit concerns alleged construction defects at 1113 Culbreath Isles Drive, Tampa, Florida 33639 (the "Property"). The Notice was electronically filed with and accepted by the Department on May 22, 2025. In the Notice, the Complainants allege that USIC committed statutory violations with regard to an unsatisfactory settlement offer. The Complainant alleges that USIC violated section 624.155(1)(b)(1) Florida Statute. As provided in further detail below, we draw the Department’s attention to the status of the Claimants. Claimants have filed the CRN alleging that USIC has mishandled the claim; however, we apprise the Department that the Claimants are neither policy holders nor judgment holders under the Policy. Therefore, even if stop our response here, Claimants have no viable bad-faith claim against USIC for alleged “mishandling” of the claim because they have no rights under the Policy or the handling of FPD’s claim. The Notice is Deficient as Filed for Failure to Adhere to the Requirements of Florida Statute Section 624.155(3)(b). Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, sets forth the requirement that the Notice shall state with specificity all of the following: (1) the statutory provision allegedly violated, including the specific language of the statute; (2) the facts and circumstances that give rise to a violation of those statutes referenced in the civil remedy notice; (3) the name of any individual involved in the alleged violation; and (4) the specific policy language that is relevant to the alleged violation. Florida courts have interpreted section 624.155(3)(b) to require that a civil remedy notice be specific enough to provide insurers notice of wrongdoing so an insurer can timely cure the alleged violations within sixty days. See, e.g., Heritage Corp. of S. Fla. v. Nat. Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 580 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1298-99 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (insured did not state with specificity the facts giving rise to the specific statutory violation so as to put insurer on notice of wrongful acts being alleged); Nowak v. Lexington Ins. Co., 464 F. Supp. 2d 1248, 1251-52 (S.D. Fla. 2006) (holding that the insured could not proceed with a cause of action based upon an alleged violation of section 626.9541 when that statute was not specifically listed in the CRN); Valenti v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., No. 8:04-CV-1615-T-30TGW, 2006 WL 1627276, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 6, 2006) (disallowing certain actions for bad faith that were not specific enough to put insurer on notice of alleged violations). The Notice provided is vague and deficient in that it fails to describe the facts and circumstances giving rise to the alleged statutory violations. Florida courts have interpreted section 624.155(3)(b), Florida Statutes, to require that a civil remedy notice be specific enough to provide insurers notice of wrongdoing so an insurer can timely cure the alleged violations within sixty days. See, e.g., Heritage Corp. of S. Fla. v. Nat. Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 580 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1298–99 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (insured did not state with specificity the facts giving rise to the specific statutory violation so as to put insurer on notice of wrongful acts being alleged); Valenti v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., No. 8:04-CV-1615- T-30TGW, 2006 WL 1627276, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 6, 2006) (disallowing certain actions for bad faith that were not specific enough to put insurer on notice of alleged violations). Additionally, a Notice that cites numerous statutes with no factual support fails to meet this specificity requirement. See Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So.3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021); see also Demase v. State Farm Florida Ins. Co., 5D21-2078, 2022 WL 16909408, at *5 (Fla. 5th DCA Nov. 14, 2022) (Sasso, J., concurring) (the “’kitchen sink’ approach does not satisfy the specificity requirements of section 624.155.”). The Notice alleges that the Claimants “asserted claims in excess of the policy limits against the insured in 2023.” Here, the Notice references a lawsuit for alleged defects at the Property, where FPD purportedly acted as a general contractor. Claimants incorrectly interpret the Policy as identifying them as either an insured or beneficiary. In reality, the Claimants are neither insureds nor interested parties under the Policy. Accordingly, USIC has no obligations to the Claimants. The Notice also asserts that USIC “possessed the claimants' damages information for a month and their initial rebuild estimate for approximately six weeks,” and therefore contends that USIC’s alleged failure to resolve the Claimants’ claim violates Fla. Stat. § 624.155(1)(b)(1). These assertions do not establish a valid basis for bad-faith. Rather, they reflect the Claimants’ continued attempt to reframe the Policy to create obligations and benefits where none exist. The allegations are at best vague, conclusory, and unsupported by facts sufficient to demonstrate that USIC owed any duty to the Claimants under the Policy. Accordingly, it appears as though Claimants are engaging in the “kitchen sink” approach in asserting vague circumstantial factual allegations to bolster a preconceived notion that USIC mishandled the claim. The alleged statutory violation is only supported by vague, unsubstantiated factual allegations and a recitation of the statute. Therefore, the Notice is, at best, vague, unsupported, and legally deficient, to which USIC respectfully requests that it be rejected by the Department. Furthermore, the Policies contain Primary and Non-Contributing Insurance Endorsements, which provide that “[a]ny coverage provided to an Additional Insured under this policy shall be excess over any other valid and collectible insurance available to such Additional Insured whether primary, excess, contingent or on any other basis unless: (1) The Additional Insured is a Named Insured under such other insurance; and (2) A fully written contract fully executed prior to the Named Insured’s commencement of work for such Additional Insured for the specific project that is the subject of the claim, ‘suit,’ or ‘occurrence’ expressly requires that this insurance: (i) apply on a primary and non-contributory basis; and (ii) would not seek contribution from any other insurance available to the additional insured . . . .” As the Lawsuit and Notice do not allege any agreement that Claimants are additional insureds or that the Policy is primary and contributory, it follows that there is no coverage available under the Policy. Despite the deficiencies of the Notice, USIC denies that it or any of its representatives engaged in any prohibited conduct or violated the statute referenced in the Notice with respect to the claim. USIC acted in good faith, without delay, and with due regard at all times during the investigation, handling, and adjustment of the claim. If the Department has any questions or requires any additional information, please contact us. Regards, Bret M. Feldman BMF/CDC cc: Via E-mail Stephen Bagge, Esq. Carey, O’Malley, Whitaker, Mueller, Roberts & Smith 712 South Oregon Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606-2516
sbagge@baggelaw.com 05-28-2025 As a supplement to the foregoing notice, the claimants note that for the carrier to cure its bad faith, it must tender all payment obligations under the supplementary payments portion of the subject policy, including, but not limited to, pre-judgment interest. As such, cure by the carrier requires payment of the policy limits plus all interest accrued to date on all damages supporting the damages claim.
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