Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     823267
Filing Accepted:  5/23/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
SEMINOLE PARK HOLDINGS LLC   First Name  
Street Address * PO BOX 1098
City, State Zip * DUNEDIN, FL 34697
Email Address * CJALLO@OUTLOOK.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   SEMINOLE PARK HOLDINGS LLC   First Name  
Policy # * 697033 Claim #* 2401127
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* JALLO First Name * CHRISTOPHER Initial
Street Address* PO BOX 1098
City, State Zip* DUNEDIN , FL 34697
Email Address * CJALLO@OUTLOOK.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, LONDON
NAIC Company Code
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* INSURER, ALONG WITH DAVIES CLAIMS NORTH AMERICA, INSURER'S THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR
Type of Insurance * Commercial Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
Claim Delay
Unfair Trade Practice
* Statutory provision(s) which the insurer allegedly violated.
 
624.155(1)(b)(1) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests.
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)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to 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.

The specific policy language relevant to the violations includes, but is not limited to: The “Building and Personal Property Coverage Form” CP 00 10 04 02, including: (a) Section A.1. – Coverage for Building; (b) Section A.4.b. – Debris Removal, Mitigation and Preservation of Property; (c) Section E – Loss Conditions, Duties in the Event of Loss or Damage, Loss Payment; and (e) Section F. – Coinsurance. The “Causes of Loss – Special Form” CP 10 30 04 02, including: (a) Section G.2. – Specified Causes of Loss (including Windstorm). Any endorsements referenced or attached, including but not limited to: (a) BW33558 10-16 – Exclusion – Existing Damage. The above provisions collectively govern coverage for the Insured’s property, prompt loss adjustment, valuation and payment obligations, mitigation reimbursement, and limitations on coinsurance penalties. Insurer’s failure to properly apply these provisions has resulted in delay, underpayment, and bad faith conduct.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

This Civil Remedy Notice is filed by Seminole Park Holdings LLC (“Insured”) against Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London (“Insurer”) for statutory bad faith and improper handling of a covered commercial property insurance claim (Claim No. 2401127) by Insurer, including its third party administrator, Davies Claims North America, arising from Hurricane Milton on October 9, 2024. The Insured timely reported the loss to the Insurer, who ultimately has admitted that the damage to the Insured’s property—including the upper and lower roof systems—was caused by a Covered Cause of Loss (windstorm). Despite this, the Insurer has improperly delayed, minimized, and underpaid the claim. The Insured submitted emergency mitigation invoices and photographic evidence of roof damage and ongoing water intrusion, retained a licensed roofing contractor, and cooperated fully with the Insurer and its adjusters/administrators. The Insurer’s own engineer and adjuster confirmed visible wind damage. However, the Insurer has paid only $88,616.62 to date—split into multiple checks, delayed by over 150 days—and has relied on an undisclosed and improper co-insurance penalty based on an inflated valuation that included tenant property and improvements not covered under the Insured’s policy. The Insurer has attempted to impose a penalty based on either a retroactively created valuation or valuation it claims it was aware of at policy inception but not disclosed to Insured. Regardless, said valuation admittedly includes tenant-owned equipment not directly covered under the Policy or including as part of this Claim. Further, the Insurer delayed scheduling its engineer's inspection, including reinspection of the additional leaks for weeks despite being on notice of new leaks since at least February 24, 2025. When an inspection was finally offered in April, the Insured noted that such delay was unacceptable and would only exacerbate damages. The Insurer’s response was to continue to ignore, fail to respond and then issue an updated Reservation of Rights letter dated April 23, 2025, falsely claiming that the Insured had failed to cooperate. This is demonstrably false: the Insured provided access, documentation, ongoing photos, roofing contact information, mitigation invoices, and responsive communications—while the Insurer failed to respond substantively to the March 18, 2025 demand or pay approved mitigation costs totaling now over $24,000. The Insurer’s conduct violates Florida Statutes §§ 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(2), and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), (b), (c), (d), and (f). The Insurer failed to adopt and implement proper claims investigation standards, misrepresented pertinent policy terms and facts, failed to promptly communicate and settle the claim, and failed to issue timely payment despite clear liability. The Insured has made every reasonable attempt to cooperate, mitigate damages, and resolve this matter in good faith. The Insurer has not acted with due regard for the Insured’s interests. As a result, damages continue to accrue, including additional water intrusion, mitigation costs, and legal fees. The Insured is prepared to resolve this matter without litigation if the Insurer promptly issues full payment of all amounts owed under the Policy, including roof replacement costs, emergency mitigation expenses, and attorney’s fees and costs. Otherwise, the Insured intends to proceed with legal action, including a complaint for breach of contract and statutory bad faith under § 624.155, Fla. Stat.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
cjallo@outlook.com 05-01-2026 The Civil Remedy Notice is hereby withdrawn by Complainant, Seminole Park Holdings LLC, as to Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London and Davies Claims North America (Insurer's third party administrator) following a resolution of the Claim.
klongo@wshblaw.com 07-22-2025 We write on behalf of Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London Subscribing to Policy No. 697033 ("Underwriters"), in response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation bearing DFS File No. 823267 (the "Notice"). The Notice was submitted to the Florida Department of Financial Services (the "Department") by Seminole Park Holdings LLC ("Claimant") in connection with the property located at 6950 Seminole Blvd, Seminole, FL 33772, and the Notice bears an acceptance date of May 23, 2025. Underwriters insured the Property under Policy No. 697033 (the "Policy"). The Claimant's allegations arise out of its disagreement with Underwriters' coverage determination. While Underwriters welcome the opportunity to respond to this Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations and specifically deny each and every allegation contained in the Civil Remedy Notice filed in relation to this claim, Underwriters believe that the Civil Remedy Notice should be deemed deficient as it fails to comply with the specific information requirements as set forth in Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation document provisions as set forth in section 624.155, Florida Statute and Florida case law. Notwithstanding the fact that the Notice is deficient for the reasons stated below, Underwriters respectfully submit that they have not acted in bad faith. To the contrary, Underwriters have acted at all times in good faith and applied the terms of coverage as clearly and unambiguously as stated in the Policy. I. THE NOTICE IS LEGALLY DEFICIENT As a preliminary matter, in the "Notice Against" section, the Notice names "Underwriters at Lloyd's, London." This is insufficient to provide Notice to a member of the London insuring market. It does not specify to which member of the Market the CRN applies. The use of the generic description "Underwriters at Lloyd's, London" is insufficient under Florida law. Underwriters reserve all rights regarding this issue. Second, in the Notice's "Notice Against" section, the Claimant wrongfully identifies the type of insurer the Claimant is filing the Notice against. Specifically, the Claimant identifies Underwriters as an "Authorized Insurer." This is inaccurate. Contrary to Claimant's allegations in the Notice, Underwriters are not an "Authorized Insurer" under Florida law. Rather, Underwriters are a collection of unauthorized insurance syndicates who subscribe to insurance policies issued to Florida citizens via qualified and licensed “surplus lines agents.” See § 626.913(2), Fla. Stat. (2008). Notably, the Notice misidentifies the type of insurer the Claimant filed the Notice against. This misidentification does not comply with requirements of Fla. Stat. § 624.155, Florida Administrative Code 69J-123.002, or DFS Form DFS-10-363, further rendering the Notice defective. Additionally, the Notice also fails to state with specificity the facts and circumstances giving rise to the alleged violations, as required by section 624.155. Moreover, the Notice misrepresents the actual facts of this claim and omits relevant facts that demonstrate how Underwriters properly and efficiently adjusted this claim. Section 624.155 mandates that a notice "shall state with specificity . . . the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation" (emphasis supplied). Additionally, a "civil remedy notice must be specific enough to provide the insurer notice of the wrongdoing so that insurer can cure the same within sixty days." See § 624.155. Here, the Notice fails to state with specificity the facts and circumstances giving rise to the alleged violations. The Claimant alleges five separate statutory violations; however, the Claimant fails to connect the alleged statutory violations to any facts that support the assertion that Underwriters violated these statutes. Instead, the Claimant generally states violations of these statutes occurred but provides no specific facts to substantiate these conclusory claims. The Notice alleges statutory violations including failure to settle claims in good faith, failing to promptly settle claims, failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims, failing to acknowledge or act promptly upon communications with respect to claims, and failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of the basis in the insurance policy for denial of a claim or offer of a compromise settlement. The actual narrative of the Notice, however, describes none of these things, and instead alleges in short (and despite the lack of an articulated cure amount) that Underwriters has "underpaid the claim". Therefore, the Notice is legally deficient because it fails to state with specificity how Underwriters violated the alleged statutory provisions. The Notice provides a series of unsupported blanket conclusory allegations about Underwriter's practices. The Notice alleges that Underwriters "failed to train and retain competent claims personnel who can investigate claims and apply the facts to the coverages within the Policy." In contrast, Underwriters have consistently handled claims with good faith throughout the state of Florida. This accusatory language prejudices Underwriters and provides no actual factual support for the Notice's conclusory allegations. As a result, the Notice is wholly insufficient (and incorrect). Instead of providing Underwriters with actual notice of the Claimant's concerns about the claim, the Notice is essentially a "shotgun-blast effort to hit a lot of targets with a single salvo." Rousso v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., No. 10-CV-20554, 2010 WL 7367059 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 13, 2010). This type of approach is disfavored by Florida courts because it is contrary to the purposes of Section 624.155. "The civil remedy notice must reflect a good-faith effort to inform the insurer of how it has fallen short of its obligations under the policy and what it can do to fix its shortcomings. The civil remedy notice is not the place for posturing or advocacy, and an effort to overstate a claim in a civil remedy notice may end up undermining it." Id. As a result of the "shotgun-blast approach" taken with respect to this Notice, Underwriters are left without reasonable means to respond to the alleged violations. For the aforementioned reasons, Underwriters believe that the Civil Remedy Notice does not comply with section 624.155; regardless of the lack of the compliance, Underwriters deny all allegations contained in the Civil Remedy Notice. II. UNDERWRITERS ACTED IN GOOD FAITH Notwithstanding the fact that the Notice is legally deficient for the reasons stated above, Underwriters deny that they acted in bad faith. To the contrary, Underwriters have acted in good faith, and with due consideration of their Insured's interests. Underwriters adjusted the Insured's claim as expeditiously as possible, and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Policy and Florida law. This claim was reported shortly after the claimed date of loss of October 9, 2024 (coinciding with the passing of Hurricane Milton). Field Adjuster Chad Davis inspected on behalf of Underwriters on October 25, 2024, and photographed damages pertaining to the wind claim presented by the insured. Underwriters also retained a third-party engineer, Mr. John Melton, PE of Root Cause Engineering to inspect the property on January 11, 2025. Following the inspections, the field adjuster generated a $219,491.88 RCV estimate of damages. As explained in the February 20, 2025 payment letter, this resulted in a net settlement payment of $88,616.62 after application of the policy's coinsurance penalty and the $54,053.10 deductible. The letter further invited the insured to submit any documentation "you believe Underwriters should consider as part of your Claim." On approximately February 25, 2025, the Claimant notified the Underwriters of additional roof leaks. Underwriters' representative attempted to contact the Claimant's representative via e-mail on or about February 28, 2025 and asked if the leaks were in a new location. Underwriters advised that if the leaks were in a new location, an engineering reinspection would be necessary. Underwriters again followed up on or about March 12, 2025, but received no response from the claimant until approximately March 21, 2025, at which time the Claimant replied to advise that the roof leaks were the result of hurricane damage. Following this, the engineer contacted the Claimant and offered his earliest availability on either April 5, or April 12, 2025. However, as admitted in the Notice, the Claimant issued written refusal to cooperate in providing access for the reinspection, claiming that "a 2-3 week delay" for the reinspection "is neither reasonable nor acceptable." Underwriters continued to attempt to schedule the reinspection, including in a May 7, 2025 letter. Instead of cooperating with the investigation as required under the Policy, the Claimant issued a demand letter on March 18, 2025. Notwithstanding the Claimant's refusal to cooperate in facilitating the engineering reinspection, this ultimatum demanded that Underwriters ignore the Policy's terms and apply no coinsurance penalty whatsoever to the loss. The letter then further demanded $312,667.19, representing the Claimant's estimates for repairs and mitigation. The demand letter outlined the Claimant's rebuttals to Underwriters' coverage positions. These rebuttals, however, make unsupported statements of law with citations to irrelevant case law. With respect to the coinsurance valuation, the Claimant argued, without citation, that Underwriters had a duty to provide the Claimant with an insurance to value ("ITV") figure at policy inception. The demand letter goes on to argue that Underwriters had a duty to warn the Claimant that under the policy, a coinsurance penalty could apply against the Claimant. Such warnings are, of course, governed by Fla. Stat. 627.701, and the Policy is compliant with that section and contains the requisite warning: "This policy contains a co-pay provision that may result in high out-of-pocket expenses to you." Notwithstanding this warning, the Claimant's demand letter claims "Florida law estops Insurer from penalizing Insured for limits it knew, or should have known, may have been inadequate without notice or opportunity to correct." In support of this proposition, the Claimant cites Chalfonte Condo v. QBE Ins. Corp., 695 F. 3d 1215, 1222 (11 Cir. 2012). Chalfonte is a federal case out of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals that held, based on guidance from the Florida Supreme Court, that the failure of an insurer to comply with statutory font size requirements when providing notice of a hurricane deductible provision did not render the provision void. On the page specifically cited by the Claimant, 1222, the court discusses the evolution of insurance contract litigation and Florida's bad faith statute. It does not mention or support anything like the Claimant's estoppel argument. This pattern of irrelevant case law citations persists throughout the demand letter. The next part of the demand letter goes into the Claimant's disagreements with Root Cause's engineering findings, and again cites inapplicable or irrelevant case law. The letter states that "Insurer bears the burden of proving the exclusion applies, a burden it has failed to meet," and cites Travelers Indem. Co. v. PCR Inc., 889 So. 2d 779, 789 (Fla. 2004). Travelers is a Florida Supreme Court case in which that court assessed an intentional act exclusion in a liability insurance policy. Page 789 is a discussion of the court's precedents defining the term "accident" and bears no relation to the burden of proof asserted by the Claimant. The demand letter further attacks Root Cause's findings of pre-loss ponding and seam failures as irrelevant to the coverage determination, and asserts that "Policy exclusions require direct linkage." The Claimant cites Hartford Acc. And Indem. Co. v. Beaver, 466 F. 3d 1289, 1296 (11 Cir. 2006), another federal 11th Circuit case in which the court held that a liability insurer had a duty to defend its insured against a class action suit where the class had not yet been certified by a state court. Page 1296 contains the court's analysis about whether claims from putative class members trigger a liability insurer's duty to defend and does not have anything to do with the Claimant's proposition. To the best of their ability, Underwriters adjusted this claim diligently, promptly, and properly. They were at times thwarted by the Claimant's failure to cooperate—most notably in connection with the engineering reinspection. Underwriters have not violated sections 624.155(1)(b)(1) as alleged in the notice because Underwriters acted fairly and honestly towards the Claimant, promptly sent an adjuster and an engineer to the property in order to investigate the claim and to determine the extent of the alleged damages associated with the subject claim, communicated with the Insured's representatives throughout the investigation. Underwriters have not violated section 624.155(1)(b)(3) because it promptly issued its coverage determination and requested access for further investigation upon being presented with a competing estimate and notice of new damage. Underwriters have not violated section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) because it has been in consistent communication with the Claimant's representative from the outset of the claim. Additionally, Underwriters have not violated sections 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) or 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), of the Florida Statutes as alleged in the notice because Underwriters implemented standards for proper investigation of claims and promptly investigated the claim. Contrary to the allegations of the Notice, Underwriters did indeed provide written, reasonable explanations to the Claimant regarding the basis for its coverage determination. The Claimant's Notice fails to allege a single fact to show that the Underwriters failed adopt standards for proper investigation. As shown above, the facts indicate the contrary. Underwriters promptly investigated the claim upon receipt of notice, inspected the property, and subsequently retained experts to inspect the property and review their cause of loss determination, and communicated with the Insured and their representatives. For the reasons stated above, Underwriters assert that the Notice is legally deficient. Additionally, Underwriters respectfully emphasize that they have done nothing other than act in utmost good faith and applied the terms of coverage as clearly and unambiguously stated in the Policy. Florida law is clear that an insurer has the right to investigate claims presented for payment and is expressly afforded an opportunity to evaluate its rights and liabilities. See 316, Inc. V. Maryland Cas. Co., 625 F.Supp.2d 1187, 1192 (N.D. Fla. 2008) (quoting Talat Enters., Inc. V. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 2000)). Underwriters deny they have acted in bad faith and deny that they have violated any Florida Statutes, Administrative Codes or any provisions of the subject Policy of insurance.
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