Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     823270
Filing Accepted:  5/23/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION   First Name   MEDITERRANEA
Street Address * 3988-3994 MEDITERRANEA CIRCLE
City, State Zip * SARASOTA, FL 34233
Email Address * WITHHELD
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION   First Name   MEDITERRANEA
Policy # * HCP007337 Claim #* H010037505
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* GREENBERG First Name * GREGORY Initial
Street Address* 350 NORTH LAKE DESTINY ROAD
City, State Zip* MAITLAND , FLORIDA 32751
Email Address * GGREENBERG@ITSABOUTJUSTICE.LAW
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   HERITAGE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 14407
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* HERITAGE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY
Type of Insurance * Commercial Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
Claim Delay
Unfair Trade Practice
Other : Misrepresentation
* Statutory provision(s) which the insurer allegedly violated.
 
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)(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)(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.

CP 00 17 06 07 A. Coverage E. Loss Conditions CP 10 10 A. Covered Causes of Loss CP 01 91 07 10 HC 00 01 05 18 Loss Settlement Loss Payment
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

On or about October 10, 2024, Mediterranea Condominium Association (“Mediterranea”) suffered damage to its property located at Loc 1. Struct. No. 3988-3994 Mediterranea Circle, Sarasota, FL 34233, Loc 1. Struct No. 2. Garage - 3988-3994 Mediterranea Circle, Sarasota, FL 34233, Loc 1. Struct No 3. 3972-3982 Mediterranea Circle, Sarasota, FL 34233, Loc 1 Struct No 4. Garage – 3972-3982 Mediterranea Circle, Sarasota, FL 34233, Loc 1. Struct No. 5. Garage – 3972-3982 Mediterranea Circle, Sarasota, FL 34233, Loc 1. Struct No. 6. 3952-3966 Mediterranea Circle, Sarasota, FL 34233, Loc 1. Struct No. 7. Garage – 3952-3966 Mediterranea Circle, Sarasota, FL 34233, Loc 1. Struct No. 8. Garage – 3952-3966 Mediterranea Circle, Sarasota, FL 34233 3988-3994 , Loc 1. Struct No. 9. 3935-3945 Mediterranea Circle, Sarasota, FL 34233, Loc 1. Struct No. 10. Garage – 3935-3945 Mediterranea Circle, Sarasota, FL 34233, Loc 1. Struct No. 11. Garage – 3935-3945 Mediterranea Circle, Sarasota, FL 34233, Loc 1. Struct No. 12. 3919-3929 Mediterranea Circle, Sarasota, FL 34233, Loc 1. Struct No. 13. Garage – 3919-3929 Mediterranea Circle, Sarasota, FL 34233, Loc 1. Struct No. 14. Garage – 3919-3929 Mediterranea Circle, Sarasota, FL 34233, Loc 1. Struct No. 15. 3903-3913 Mediterranea Circle, Sarasota, FL 34233, Loc 1. Struct No. 16. Garage – 3903-3913 Mediterranea Circle, Sarasota, FL 34233, Loc 1. Struct No. 17. Garage – 3903-3913 Mediterranea Circle, Sarasota, FL 34233, Loc 1. Struct No. 18. 1 Unit Condo & Clubhouse - 3951 Mediterranea Circle, Sarasota, FL 34233 resulting from Hurricane Milton. Insured is a residential condominium association where many residents have saved their entire lives to enjoy their retirement in peace. Instead, they are still picking up the pieces of their lives and living in chaos due to damages sustained from Hurricane Milton which remain unrepaired as of the date of this filing due to lack of sufficient funds to complete repairs from their property insurer. Prior to the loss, Heritage Property and Casualty Insurance Company (“Heritage”) issued a policy of insurance (policy no. HCP007337) for Insured’s property. Said policy was in full force and effect on the date of loss and afforded coverage for damage caused by hurricane. Heritage was immediately notified of the loss by Insured and assigned claim number H010037505. During Heritage’s investigation, Mediterranea made their property available for multiple inspections and fully cooperated with Heritage’s investigation of the claim. Heritage did the bare minimum to adjust the claim. Heritage failed to timely respond to communications, provide estimates supporting the loss payments, or adjust the loss in good faith. Upon information and belief Heritage routinely engages in a pattern and practice of assigning “experts” such as John Runkle and Ransom Consulting who were used in this claim in order to avoid full payment of claims and obscure or hide information available to Heritage that is withheld from its insureds. For instance, Heritage represented in a correspondence dated February 10, 2025 that its assigned field adjuster observed “wind damage to the roofing shingles and exterior elevations” and that Heritage “also assigned John Runkle and Niboom Tenzin with Pinchin Engineering to inspect the property as well.” It attached a 28-page estimate for repairs with no other explanation of what was observed or damaged. Heritage then sent a “revised estimate” of 58 pages dated February 4, 2025 with no explanation whatsoever. Despite Mediterranea fully cooperating with Heritage’s investigation, Heritage denied the majority of Mediterranea’s claim without providing specific and articulable facts explaining its decision despite obvious storm damage to every building at the property. The scant explanation of boilerplate text is confusing and clearly designed to obfuscate the fact that Heritage knows its liability extends far beyond the meager coverage afforded to Insured. Similarly, and unfortunately, Heritage offered no explanation at all for its supplemental payment dated March 25, 2025. Heritage has used these elementary tactics for years and they are clearly devised to bury or downplay information in Heritage’s possession proving it undervalued Insured’s claim. Upon information and belief, Heritage routinely engages in a pattern and practice of undervaluing residential commercial property insurance claims at or near their insureds’ deductibles in order to avoid full payment of claims such as it did here. There are widespread damages to the roofing systems, including but not limited to torn, missing, and unsealed shingles, along with mat transfer, windborne debris impact strikes, damage to the gutters, garage doors, and light fixtures and window and door damage. Furthermore, the underlayment on the roofing system has failed in units 3935, 3937, and 3945 and allowed water to enter the buildings due to storm-created openings. Despite knowing this, Heritage extended a meager $3,793.32 after deductible for repairs to Insured’s property. It is clear that Heritage has not acted honestly or fairly towards Mediterranea. Heritage and its adjusters have misrepresented the scope and cause of damages to Mediterranea’s property and misapplied exclusions in the policy in order to deny coverage for the majority of Mediterranea’s claim in order to ensure its valuation of the claim would be the bare minimum, As is the case here, it has become a general business practice of Heritage to not implement proper claims handling procedures, to hire consultants that routinely ignore or intentionally misidentify relevant evidence, and to not settle claims in good faith when under all circumstances it should have. Heritage regularly undervalues claims in order to avoid issuing payment on losses that it knows are covered under the policy. Heritage also routinely refuses to pay claims in full when it has the ability to do so, waits to see if its insureds contest their coverage determination, before it is ever willing to perform repairs or issue benefits that were already owed under the policy. Heritage has developed this deliberate strategy in order to deter its Insured from challenging its coverage determinations and hinder the ability to seek additional payment for monies owed under the policy. Heritage’s practice of not adjusting losses in good faith in accordance with section 627.70131, Florida Statues, unnecessarily delays resolution of its claims and leaves claimants like Mediterranea with no choice but to incur further time and expense just to be fully indemnified pursuant to the terms of the contract with Heritage. Heritage has completely abdicated its duty to adjust and has put the onus on its insureds, like Mediterranea, to spend tens of thousands of dollars contesting the claim determination before Heritage is willing to issue benefits or make repairs that it knows are owed pursuant to the policy. Heritage’s pattern and practice of underrepresenting the actual cost and cause of damages, is evidence that it did not act fairly or honestly towards Mediterranea during its adjustment process and that it has failed to implement proper standards for the investigation and handling of claims. To remedy this Civil Remedy Notice, Heritage must immediately tender the full remaining amount of insurance benefits owed in the amount of $1,823,740.89. The payment should be tendered to the Insured’s attorney, Gregory Greenberg, Esq. at 350 N. Lake Destiny Road, Suite 300, Maitland, FL 32751.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
ncarlisle@heritagepci.com 07-14-2025 July 14, 2025 VIA Certified Mail: Florida Department of Financial Services Consumer Assistance, c/o: Civil Remedy Section Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0322 VIA Certified Mail: E-mail Correspondence: Gregory Greenberg/ ggreenberg@itsaboutjustice.law Brittni Galgano / brittni@itsaboutjustice.law Re: CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE OF INSURER VIOLATIONS Complainant : Mediterranea Condominium Association, Inc. Policy Number : HCP007337 Claim Number : H010037505 Date of Loss : 10/09/2024 [sic] Loss Location : 3988-3994 Mediterranea Circle, Sarasota, FL 34233 DFS Filing Number : 823270 Date of DFS Acceptance: May 23, 2025 Dear Counsel, This correspondence constitutes Heritage’s response to the Civil Remedy Notice (“CRN”) of Insurer Violation filed by Gregory Greenberg, Esq., on behalf of Complainant, regarding the claim listed above. We represent Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“Heritage”) regarding the claim presented by Mediterranea Condominium Association, Inc. (“Complainant”) for alleged damages sustained to the subject property on or about October 9, 2024 [sic]1, the subject claim of this CRN. Without waiving Heritage’s arguments that the subject Civil Remedy Notice should be stricken as it is legally insufficient and non-compliant with Florida law, Heritage and its representatives/agents have at all times performed its obligations under the insurance policy in a prompt and diligent manner with due regard for the interest of Mediterranea Condominium Association, Inc. The Notice contains a list of violations which are alleged to have been committed by Heritage. In fact, none of the listed violations/allegations have occurred and Heritage 1 While the CRN references the date of loss as October 10, 2024, the correct date of loss is October 9, 2024.July 14, 2025 Page 2 of 7 categorically denies any violations of §624.155, and/or §626.9541, Fla. Stat., as well as any and all other statutes/regulations/codes/rules. Moreover, Heritage denies any and all allegations of any kind referenced in the Civil Remedy Notice. Florida Statute §624.155(3)(b)(2), requires the Complainant to “describe the facts and circumstances giving rise to the insurer’s violation”, to enable the insurer to investigate and resolve the claim. Contrary to the requirement set forth in the statute, this CRN contains overbroad and incorrect allegations, which stem only from the Complainant’s opinions regarding the value of its own claim, and therefore, the Complainant’s opinions regarding Heritage’s adjustment of this claim. Moreover, Florida Statute §624.155(3)(b)(4) requires Complainant to refer to specific policy language that is relevant to the alleged violation, if any. Complainant’s CRN has not only failed to identify the specific policy provisions, but it is also void of factual basis for such alleged violations. Additionally, the tenor and inferences of the allegations in the Notice are without merit. Contrary to the allegations made in the CRN, Heritage actively investigated the Complainant’s damage since the claim was filed. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and without waiving any denial of the allegations contained within the Notice, that on or about December 12, 2024 [sic]2, Heritage received notice of an alleged October 10, 2024, Hurricane Milton loss at the subject property. Heritage assigned field adjuster, Greg Harrison, who thoroughly investigated the claim, including inspecting the subject property on or about December 16, 2024, and December 27, 2024, and he also prepared an estimate for damages. Subsequently, Heritage engaged Tornado Construction of Florida to assist in evaluating the exterior/roofing systems. Heritage also engaged Pinchin Engineering to report on causation and extent of the observed damage. Specifically, on January 29, 2025 through January 31, 2025, John A. Runkle, P.E. and Niboom Tenzin P.E., inspected the property. During the non-destructive site investigation, the properties were visually inspected, photographed, and findings were documented. It was ultimately confirmed that repair, versus replacement, was warranted on some of the structures at the subject property. Then, on January 30, 2025, Heritage received a letter of representation from Gregory N. Greenberg, Esq. of Cohen Law Group. Then on February 10, 2025, Heritage issued its coverage determination letter along with a detailed estimate in the amount of $243,442.63, before considering recoverable, non-recoverable, and deductible amounts. The aforementioned letter also included the specific payment breakdown for each building. After applying recoverable depreciation and the 5% hurricane deductible, a payment of $3,793.32 was issued to Complainant. Thereafter, Heritage issued several “Request for Information” and “Reservation of Rights” letters requesting important claim information and additional documentation from Complainant. Specifically, Heritage requested documentation of all repairs and maintenance history. Additionally, enclosed in the correspondence was a copy of Heritage’s estimate. 2 While the CRN references that the loss was reported on December 11, 2024, the loss was actually reported on December 12, 2024.Andrew Bruce, Esquire Legal Department Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company 1401 N. Westshore Blvd. Tampa, FL 33607 Telephone: 727-465-4711 Email: abruce@heritagepci.com Nonetheless, in furtherance of Heritage’s supplemental investigation, Heritage requested Tornado Construction prepare a supplemental estimate based on Pinchin Engineering’s findings relative to the damage observed relative to Hurricane Milton. Thus, on March 24, 2025, Heritage issued a supplemental coverage determination letter along with said estimate in the amount of $258,532.63 less the deductible of $236,963.13 recoverable depreciation of $13,628.75, and prior payment of $3,793.32, for a total of $4,147.43. A “Statement of Loss” was also enclosed, which identifies the specific payment breakdown for each building. After applying non-recoverable depreciation and the 5% hurricane deductible, the observed damage resulted in Heritage issuing a supplement check in the amount of $4,147.43 to Complainant. The method for curing the violations alleged in a civil remedy notice is not determined by the Insureds. In Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 753 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 2000), the Florida Supreme Court accepted and quoted the reasoning of the court below in its opinion which stated in relevant part, as follows: Section §624.155 does not impose on an insurer the obligation to pay whatever the Insureds demands. . . . Section §624.155(2)(d) would have no effect or purpose under such an interpretation. The law does not support such an expansive and illogical reading of Fla. Stat. Ann. §624.155(2)(d). . . . To cure an alleged violation and to avoid a civil action, an insurer must pay the claim . . . before the sixty days expire. Talat, 753 So2d at 1282 citing Talat Enterprises Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 952 F.Supp. 773, 777-778 (M.D. Fla. 1996). Reasons for Notice: Pursuant to Section §624.155, F.S. please indicate all statutory provisions alleged to have been violated. Claim Denial The Insureds indicate the claim was denied while contradicting itself within the subject Civil Remedy Notice. In fact, the Complainant states that Heritage, inter alia, “extended a meager $3,793.32 after deductible for repairs to insured’s property.” Therefore, this allegation, on its face, contradicts and disproves this allegation by the Claimant and lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute §624.155 and thus does not place Heritage on the requisite notice. Claim Delay The Claimant indicate the claim was delayed yet fails to provide any facts to support this assertion, other than the fact that Heritage diligently conducted inspections of the property utilizingJuly 14, 2025 Page 4 of 7 experts which the Insured disagrees with their opinion. The Civil Remedy Notice, filed by Complainant, fails to allege any undue or unnecessary delay in the claims handling process, but rather takes issue with the result. Therefore, it lacks a factual basis to support this allegation and lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute §624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Unfair Trade Practice The Notice fails to state who, how and when an unfair trade practice occurred therefore it lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute §624.155 and thus does not place Heritage on the requisite notice. Misrepresentation The Notice fails to state who, how and when the alleged misrepresentation occurred, nor any facts to substantiate the allegations and therefore it lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute §624.155 and thus does not place Heritage on the requisite notice. The Notice alleges the following violations: §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. The Notice does not provide any specifics by way of who, when and how Heritage committed this violation and therefore fails to comply with the specificity required. Specifically, Complainant fails to confront that they are futilely seeking inflated or uncovered items unnecessary to bring the subject property to its pre-loss condition, along with a complete lack of specific examples evidencing the alleged gross underpayment by Heritage. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. The Notice does not provide any specifics by way of who, when and how Heritage committed this violation and therefore fails to comply with the specificity required. Nowhere in the notice does it state what the alleged standards for proper investigations are that Heritage failed to adopt or implement, and who failed to adopt and implement the standards. Furthermore, the Notice outlines that Heritage performed inspections of the property with a licensed adjuster, a general contractor and also sent an engineer, so it is unclear and unsupported how Heritage failed to investigate the loss. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue.Andrew Bruce, Esquire Legal Department Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company 1401 N. Westshore Blvd. Tampa, FL 33607 Telephone: 727-465-4711 Email: abruce@heritagepci.com The Notice does not provide any specifics by way of who, when and how Heritage committed this violation and therefore fails to comply with the specificity required. Nowhere in the notice does it state what, if any, misrepresentations were made to the Complainant by Heritage or its agents. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. The Notice does not provide any specifics by way of who, when and how Heritage committed this violation and therefore fails to comply with the specificity required. Again, the Civil Remedy Notice fails to indicate any specific occurrence, topic or communication in which Heritage failed to act promptly with respect to claims. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information. The Insureds fail to state who, how and when a claim denial was made. In fact, Complainant indicates the claim was denied while contradicting itself within the same Civil Remedy Notice filed by Complainant. In fact, it states that Heritage, inter alia, “extended a meager $3,793.32 after deductible for repairs to insured’s property.” Therefore, this allegation, on its face, contradicts and disproves this allegation by the Claimant and lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute §624.155 and thus does not place Heritage on the requisite notice. §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. The Complainant fails to state who, how and when Heritage failed to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured. In fact, on February 10, 2025, Heritage provided the Complainant with a detailed statement of loss that included an estimate for the breakdown attributable to each structure on the property. The correspondence specifically states that “[t]his estimate and payment is for the roofs, gutters and shutters only, pending is the engineer’s report for the windows and doors. If a payment is warranted, the payment will be issued as a supplement. Under separate cover, Heritage will be issuing a settlement check in the amount of $3,793.32. Please review the corresponding estimate and Statement of Loss for the financial breakdown. Additionally, the correspondence addresses the breakdown of the payment to the Complainant as follows “our preliminary damage repair estimate totals $243,442.63. After application of your respective deductible(s) $209,801.70, recoverable depreciation in the amount of $29,847.61, a payment of $3,793.32 is now due.”July 14, 2025 Page 6 of 7 Thereafter, on March 24, 2025, following additional inspections of the property, Heritage issued a supplemental payment in the amount of $4,147.43, with a detailed Statement of Loss along with an updated estimate to the Complainant. Thereafter, Pinchin Engineering undertook their inspection of the subject property, and a supplemental estimate was created to reflect the scope of the covered damages observed at the property. As a result, on March 24, 2025, Heritage issued supplemental payment to the Complainant, in the amount of $4,147.43, with a detailed statement of loss and updated estimate being provided to the Complainant. Heritage provided not one, but two detailed written explanations and estimates to support their position to the Complainant. The Noice being devoid of any factual support to this allegation lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute §624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. §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 §627.70131(5). The Notice fails to state who, how and when Heritage allegedly failed to issue any undisputed payment to the Complainant. Conversely, the Notice specifically takes issues with the “meager” payment made to the Complainant following diligent ingestion and inspection of the totality of the claim by Heritage. The Notice provides no factual basis, nor support and, therefore, fails to comply with Florida Statute §624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Overall, the Notice contains speculative allegations as to proprietary/claims handing information that is neither true, nor rises to the level of any violations of §624.155 and §626.9541, Fla. Stat., as well as any and all other statutes/regulations/codes/rules. As such, Heritage denies any and all allegations of any kind referenced in the Civil Remedy Notice. Nonetheless, Heritage contends that it issued its coverage determination based on the totality of its investigation, comparative analysis of the alleged supplemtnal damages, and all readily available facts and observations relative to this claim; despite Complainant’s failure to provide Defendant with all requisite claim information and documentation previously referenced above. Heritage does not waive any of its defenses regarding the Notice including but not limited to any technical and factual deficiencies contained in the Notice. We trust that this response addresses the allegations of insurer violation alleged in the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation. Should you have any questions regarding this matter or need anything further, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.Andrew Bruce, Esquire Legal Department Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company 1401 N. Westshore Blvd. Tampa, FL 33607 Telephone: 727-465-4711 Email: abruce@heritagepci.com If you have any questions, please contact our office anytime. Sincerely, /s/ Andrew Bruce, Esq. Andrew Bruce, Esquire AB/rr cc: Gregory Greenberg, Esquire via email CRN Response
avicenty@heritagepci.com 07-11-2025 July 11, 2025 VIA Certified Mail: Florida Department of Financial Services Consumer Assistance, c/o: Civil Remedy Section Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0322 VIA Certified Mail: E-mail Correspondence: Gregory Greenberg/ ggreenberg@itsaboutjustice.law Brittni Galgano / brittni@itsaboutjustice.law Re: CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE OF INSURER VIOLATIONS Complainant : Mediterranea Condominium Association, Inc. Policy Number : HCP007337 Claim Number : H010037505 Date of Loss : 10/10/2024 Loss Location : 3988-3994 Mediterranea Circle, Sarasota, FL 34233 DFS Filing Number : 823270 Date of DFS Acceptance: May 23, 2025 Dear Counsel, This correspondence constitutes Heritage’s response to the Civil Remedy Notice (“CRN”) of Insurer Violation filed by Gregory Greenberg, Esq., on behalf of Complainant, regarding the claim listed above. We represent Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“Heritage”) regarding the claim presented by Mediterranea Condominium Association, Inc. (“Complainant”) for alleged damages sustained to the subject property on or about October 10, 2024, the subject claim of this CRN. Without waiving Heritage’s arguments that the subject Civil Remedy Notice should be stricken as it is legally insufficient and non-compliant with Florida law, Heritage and its representatives/agents have at all times performed its obligations under the insurance policy in a prompt and diligent manner with due regard for the interest of Mediterranea Condominium Association, Inc. The Notice contains a list of violations which are alleged to have been committed by Heritage. In fact, none of the listed violations/allegations have occurred and Heritage categorically denies any violations of §624.155, and/or §626.9541, Fla. Stat., as well as any andJuly 11, 2025 Page 2 of 7 all other statutes/regulations/codes/rules. Moreover, Heritage denies any and all allegations of any kind referenced in the Civil Remedy Notice. Florida Statute §624.155(3)(b)(2), requires the Complainant to “describe the facts and circumstances giving rise to the insurer’s violation”, to enable the insurer to investigate and resolve the claim. Contrary to the requirement set forth in the statute, this CRN contains overbroad and incorrect allegations, which stem only from the Complainant’s opinions regarding the value of its own claim, and therefore, the Complainant’s opinions regarding Heritage’s adjustment of this claim. Moreover, Florida Statute §624.155(3)(b)(4) requires Complainant to refer to specific policy language that is relevant to the alleged violation, if any. Complainant’s CRN has not only failed to identify the specific policy provisions, but it is also void of factual basis for such alleged violations. Additionally, the tenor and inferences of the allegations in the Notice are without merit. Contrary to the allegations made in the CRN, Heritage actively investigated the Complainant’s damage since the claim was filed. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and without waiving any denial of the allegations contained within the Notice, that on or about December 11, 2024, Heritage received notice of an alleged October 10, 2024, Hurricane Milton loss at the subject property. Heritage assigned field adjuster, Greg Harrison, who thoroughly investigated the claim, including inspecting the subject property on or about December 16, 2024, and December 27, 2024, and he also prepared an estimate for damages. Then on February 10, 2025, Heritage issued its coverage determination letter along with a detailed estimate in the amount of $243,442.63, before considering recoverable, non-recoverable, and deductible amounts. The aforementioned letter also included the specific payment breakdown for each building. After applying recoverable depreciation and the 3% hurricane deductible, a payment of $3,793.32 was issued to Complainant. Subsequently, Heritage engaged Tornado Construction of Florida to assist in evaluating the exterior/roofing systems. Heritage also engaged Pinchin Engineering to report on causation and extent of the observed damage. Specifically, on January 29, 2025 through January 31, 2025, John A. Runkle, P.E. and Niboom Tenzin P.E., inspected the property. During the non-destructive site investigation, the properties were visually inspected, photographed, and findings were documented. It was ultimately confirmed that repair, versus replacement, was warranted on some of the structures at the subject property. Thereafter, Heritage issued several “Request for Information” and “Reservation of Rights” letters requesting important claim information and additional documentation from Complainant. Specifically, Heritage requested documentation of all repairs and maintenance history. Additionally, enclosed in the correspondence was a is a copy the Heritage estimate. Nonetheless, in furtherance of Heritage’s supplemental investigation, Heritage requested Tornado Construction prepare a supplemental estimate based on Pinchin Engineering’s findings relative to the damage observed relative to Hurricane Milton. Thus, on March 24, 2025, Heritage issued a supplemental coverage determination letter along with said estimate in the amount of $258,532.63 less the deductible of $236,963.13 recoverable depreciation of $13,628.75, and priorAndrew Bruce, Esquire Legal Department Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company 1401 N. Westshore Blvd. Tampa, FL 33607 Telephone: 727-465-4711 Email: abruce@heritagepci.com payment of $3,793.32, for a total of $4,147.43. A “Statement of Loss” was also enclosed, which identifies the specific payment breakdown for each building. After applying non-recoverable depreciation and the 3% hurricane deductible, the observed damage resulted in Heritage issuing a supplement check in the amount of $4,147.43 to Complainant. The method for curing the violations alleged in a civil remedy notice is not determined by the Insureds. In Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 753 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 2000), the Florida Supreme Court accepted and quoted the reasoning of the court below in its opinion which stated in relevant part, as follows: Section §624.155 does not impose on an insurer the obligation to pay whatever the Insureds demands. . . . Section §624.155(2)(d) would have no effect or purpose under such an interpretation. The law does not support such an expansive and illogical reading of Fla. Stat. Ann. §624.155(2)(d). . . . To cure an alleged violation and to avoid a civil action, an insurer must pay the claim . . . before the sixty days expire. Talat, 753 So2d at 1282 citing Talat Enterprises Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 952 F.Supp. 773, 777-778 (M.D. Fla. 1996). Reasons for Notice: Pursuant to Section §624.155, F.S. please indicate all statutory provisions alleged to have been violated. Claim Denial The Insureds indicate the claim was denied while contradicting itself within the subject Civil Remedy Notice. In fact, the Complainant states that Heritage, inter alia, “extended a meager $3,793.32 after deductible for repairs to insured’s property.” Therefore, this allegation, on its face, contradicts and disproves this allegation by the Claimant and lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute §624.155 and thus does not place Heritage on the requisite notice. Claim Delay The Claimant indicate the claim was delayed yet fails to provide any facts to support this assertion, other than the fact that Heritage diligently conducted inspections of the property utilizing experts which the Insured disagrees with their opinion. The Civil Remedy Notice, filed by Complainant, fails to allege any undue or unnecessary delay in the claims handling process, but rather takes issue with the result. Therefore, it lacks a factual basis to support this allegation and lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute §624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice.July 11, 2025 Page 4 of 7 Unfair Trade Practice The Notice fails to state who, how and when an unfair trade practice occurred therefore it lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute §624.155 and thus does not place Heritage on the requisite notice. Misrepresentation The Notice fails to state who, how and when the alleged misrepresentation occurred, nor any facts to substantiate the allegations and therefore it lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute §624.155 and thus does not place Heritage on the requisite notice. The Notice alleges the following violations: §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. The Notice does not provide any specifics by way of who, when and how Heritage committed this violation and therefore fails to comply with the specificity required. Specifically, Complainant fails to confront that they are futilely seeking inflated or uncovered items unnecessary to bring the subject property to its pre-loss condition, along with a complete lack of specific examples evidencing the alleged gross underpayment by Heritage. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. The Notice does not provide any specifics by way of who, when and how Heritage committed this violation and therefore fails to comply with the specificity required. Nowhere in the notice does it state what the alleged standards for proper investigations are that Heritage failed to adopt or implement, and who failed to adopt and implement the standards. Furthermore, the Notice outlines that Heritage performed inspections of the property with a licensed adjuster, a general contractor and also sent an engineer, so it is unclear and unsupported how Heritage failed to investigate the loss. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. The Notice does not provide any specifics by way of who, when and how Heritage committed this violation and therefore fails to comply with the specificity required. Nowhere in the notice does it state what, if any, misrepresentations were made to the Complainant by Heritage or its agents.Andrew Bruce, Esquire Legal Department Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company 1401 N. Westshore Blvd. Tampa, FL 33607 Telephone: 727-465-4711 Email: abruce@heritagepci.com §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. The Notice does not provide any specifics by way of who, when and how Heritage committed this violation and therefore fails to comply with the specificity required. Again, the Civil Remedy Notice fails to indicate any specific occurrence, topic or communication in which Heritage failed to act promptly with respect to claims. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information. The Insureds fail to state who, how and when a claim denial was made. In fact, Complainant indicates the claim was denied while contradicting itself within the same Civil Remedy Notice filed by Complainant. In fact, it states that Heritage, inter alia, “extended a meager $3,793.32 after deductible for repairs to insured’s property.” Therefore, this allegation, on its face, contradicts and disproves this allegation by the Claimant and lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute §624.155 and thus does not place Heritage on the requisite notice. §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. The Complainant fails to state who, how and when Heritage failed to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured. In fact, on February 10, 2025, Heritage provided the Complainant with a detailed statement of loss that included an estimate for the breakdown attributable to each structure on the property. The correspondence specifically states that “[t]his estimate and payment is for the roofs, gutters and shutters only, pending is the engineer’s report for the windows and doors. If a payment is warranted, the payment will be issued as a supplement. Under separate cover, Heritage will be issuing a settlement check in the amount of $3,793.32. Please review the corresponding estimate and Statement of Loss for the financial breakdown. Additionally, the correspondence addresses the breakdown of the payment to the Complainant as follows “our preliminary damage repair estimate totals $243,442.63. After application of your respective deductible(s) $209,801.70, recoverable depreciation in the amount of $29,847.61, a payment of $3,793.32 is now due.” Thereafter, on March 24, 2025, following additional inspections of the property, Heritage issued a supplemental payment in the amount of $4,147.43, with a detailed Statement of Loss along with an updated estimate to the Complainant.July 11, 2025 Page 6 of 7 Thereafter, Pinchin Engineering undertook their inspection of the subject property, and a supplemental estimate was created to reflect the scope of the covered damages observed at the property. As a result, on March 24, 2025, Heritage issued supplemental payment to the Complainant, in the amount of $4,147.43, with a detailed statement of loss and updated estimate being provided to the Complainant. Heritage provided not one, but two detailed written explanations and estimates to support their position to the Complainant. The Noice being devoid of any factual support to this allegation lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute §624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. §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 §627.70131(5). The Notice fails to state who, how and when Heritage allegedly failed to issue any undisputed payment to the Complainant. Conversely, the Notice specifically takes issues with the “meager” payment made to the Complainant following diligent ingestion and inspection of the totality of the claim by Heritage. The Notice provides no factual basis, nor support and, therefore, fails to comply with Florida Statute §624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Overall, the Notice contains speculative allegations as to proprietary/claims handing information that is neither true, nor rises to the level of any violations of §624.155 and §626.9541, Fla. Stat., as well as any and all other statutes/regulations/codes/rules. As such, Heritage denies any and all allegations of any kind referenced in the Civil Remedy Notice. Nonetheless, Heritage contends that it issued its coverage determination based on the totality of its investigation, comparative analysis of the alleged supplemtnal damages, and all readily available facts and observations relative to this claim; despite Complainant’s failure to provide Defendant with all requisite claim information and documentation previously referenced above. Heritage does not waive any of its defenses regarding the Notice including but not limited to any technical and factual deficiencies contained in the Notice. We trust that this response addresses the allegations of insurer violation alleged in the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation. Should you have any questions regarding this matter or need anything further, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.Andrew Bruce, Esquire Legal Department Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company 1401 N. Westshore Blvd. Tampa, FL 33607 Telephone: 727-465-4711 Email: abruce@heritagepci.com If you have any questions, please contact our office anytime. Sincerely, /s/ Andrew Bruce, Esq. Andrew Bruce, Esquire AB/rr cc: Gregory Greenberg, Esquire via email CRN Response
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