Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     823603
Filing Accepted:  5/27/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
PARDON   First Name   ILENE
Street Address * 3 SUNSET ROAD
City, State Zip * OCEANPORT, NE 07757
Email Address * OCEANTOWNCREW@GMAIL.COM
Complainant Type: * Third Party
Insured
Last/Business Name*   NAPLES TENNIS ACADEMY, LLC   First Name  
Policy # * CPS7572346 Claim #* 02179242
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* BOYERS First Name * ROBERT Initial
Street Address* 123 ALMERIA AVENUE
City, State Zip* CORAL GABLES , FL 33134
Email Address * INFO@BOYERSLAW.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 41297
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* KELLY SCHREIBER
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.

Section I – Coverage A – Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability 1.(a) We will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of “bodily injury” or “property damage” to which this insurance applies.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Dr. Ilene Pardon was an accomplished eye surgeon leading a thriving career when the Defendants' failure to maintain the Naples Grande Beach Resort’s tennis courts and surrounding fencing led to a catastrophic fall. She suffered a displaced spiral fracture of her left humerus, requiring open reduction internal fixation surgery with the implantation of hardware. Despite extensive treatment, surgery, therapy and interventions, she continues to endure chronic pain, permanent impairment and significant limitations that affect both her daily life and surgical career. In addition to her functional disabilities, she bears a disfiguring surgical scar and will likely endure future joint deterioration and additional surgery, including a total reverse shoulder replacement. On October 1, 2024, Plaintiffs Ilene and Paul Pardon filed a lawsuit against Defendant Naples Tennis Academy, LLC. On October 24, 2024, Defendant Naples Tennis Academy, LLC was served with the Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial. After Defendant Naples Tennis Academy, LLC failed to respond to the Complaint, a default was entered. Plaintiffs agreed to vacate the default and, on February 5, 2025, an order was entered vacating the default against Defendant Naples Tennis Academy, LLC. On January 16, 2025, Defendant Naples Tennis Academy, LLC filed an answer and affirmative defenses. In response to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests, Defendant Naples Tennis Academy, LLC produced an insurance policy with $1,000,000 in available coverage. No additional, supplemental, excess or umbrella policies have been disclosed. On March 6, 2025, the case against Defendant Naples Tennis Academy, LLC was consolidated with a case based upon the same incident against the property owner, Defendant HP-SSP NAPLES HOTEL, LLC. On February 20, 2025, attorneys for Defendant Naples Tennis Academy, LLC deposed both Plaintiffs. On February 21, 2025, Plaintiffs provided the attorneys for Defendant Naples Tennis Academy, LLC with a time-limited demand package including a summary of liability and damages as well as supporting medical records, medical bills, W2s and photographs. The demand included evidence of $104,557.82 in lost wages. On March 20, 2025, Defendant Naples Tennis Academy, LLC responded to the Plaintiffs’ February 21, 2025 demand and stated: “We have reviewed the allegations contained in your demand letter/settlement proposal as well as the documents in our possession related to this claim. At this time, we are still in the process of thoroughly evaluating the Plaintiffs’ claims. As such, we are rejecting your settlement proposal at this time, as further investigation and review is necessary to fully understand and assess the details of this matter.” Defendant Naples Tennis Academy, LLC’s March 20, 2025 correspondence did not contain a request for further information or documents. On March 21, 2025, Plaintiffs provided a supplemental global time-limited demand in the amount of $2,9750,000 directed at both Defendants. The demand included recent medical records proving the extent of Plaintiff’s significant permanent injuries and the impact those injuries have had and would continue to have on her career as an eye surgeon. Among other things, Plaintiff’s treating orthopedic surgeon explained that her career would be cut short by five to seven years due to her profound physical limitations, which will result in unreduced lost future earnings in the range of $2,366,00 - $3,312,400. When all the elements of Plaintiff’s damages are considered, they far exceed the combined total disclosed coverage by both Defendants. On April 8, 2025, Defendant Naples Tennis Academy, LLC responded to the demand and stated: “We have reviewed the allegations contained in your demand letter/settlement proposal as well as the documents in our possession related to this claim. At this time, we are still in the process of thoroughly evaluating the Plaintiffs’ claims. As such, we are rejecting your settlement proposal at this time, as further investigation and review is necessary to fully understand and assess the details of this matter.” Defendant Naples Tennis Academy, LLC’s April 8, 2025 correspondence did not contain a request for further information or documents. On May 9, 15, and 19, 2025, three representatives of Naples Tennis Academy were deposed. The testimony of the three deponents supports Plaintiffs’ claims. Notably, Steven Spano testified that afternoon tennis court maintenance was often skipped on the subject court, and that recurrent wet, uneven, and slippery areas were common on the court where Plaintiff was injured. Spano’s method for addressing these hazardous areas was not to add clay—as should have been done pursuant to industry standard and his employer’s policy—but instead to apply a few towels to dry the excess water. He also testified that algae often grew on this court surface, but he never used chemicals or salt to eliminate the slippery algae. Additionally, Alfredo Seraro testified that the fencing surrounding the subject court had been in disrepair for over a year before Ilene Pardon’s injury. He explained that, as part of normal play, tennis players routinely run off the court into the area of the damaged fence. He described the fencing as a safety hazard and acknowledged it was entirely foreseeable that someone could be injured in the very manner Ilene Pardon was injured. Seraro further testified that Defendant HP-SSP NAPLES HOTEL, LLC was responsible for repairing the fence, that the specific hole had been identified as needing repair during the initial inspection of the premises more than a year before the incident, and that he had repeatedly reminded hotel staff that the condition remained unaddressed. Despite acknowledging the danger posed by the broken fence, the safety hazard was never corrected. Chuck Breger, owner of Naples Tennis Academy, agreed with Alfredo Seraro that Defendant HP-SSP NAPLES HOTEL, LLC was responsible for maintaining and repairing the fence enclosures surrounding the subject tennis court. However, the retail lease between the Defendants does not distinguish between the courts and the fencing. To the contrary, it states that Naples Tennis Academy is responsible for maintaining the entire tennis facility—including the awnings, 32 benches, walkways, tennis courts, and windscreens affixed to the fences—in accordance with the “highest standards of playability and appearance.” The lease further requires Naples Tennis Academy to “keep and maintain the Premises and the surrounding areas, including any equipment installed therein or thereabout... in good order and repair.” The term “Premises” is defined to include “certain tennis facilities, consisting of 15 tennis courts, 17 awnings, 32 benches, walkways and walking paths, and a retail/office building (pro shop).” This language confirms that Naples Tennis Academy is contractually responsible for maintaining the fence, and its attempt to shift that responsibility to the hotel is not supported by the plain terms of the lease. To date, Scottsdale Insurance Company has, inexplicitly, not made a settlement offer nor tendered its policy limits. Despite the clear liability and significant excess exposure presented by this case, Scottsdale Insurance Company has violated its duty of good faith to settle this claim when, under these circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for its interests.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
mallory.taylor@phelps.com 07-16-2025 Phelps Dunbar LLP 100 South Ashley Drive Suite 2000 Tampa, FL 33602 Direct: 813-472-7560 Fax: 813-472-7570 Patricia A. McLean Partner mcleanp@phelps.com Direct 813 472 7560 July 16, 2025 19963-7647 Florida Department of Financial Services Division of Consumer Services Civil Remedy Services Larson Building 200 East Gaines St. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0322 Re: Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations Company: Scottsdale Insurance Company Named Insured: Naples Tennis Academy LLC Complainant: Ilene Pardon Policy No.: CPS7572346 DFS File No.: 823603 Accepted by DFS: May 27, 2025 To Whom It May Concern: We represent Scottsdale Insurance Company (“Scottsdale”), which issued Policy No. CPS7572346 (the “Policy”) to Naples Tennis Academy LLC (the “Insured”) for the policy period from May 6, 2022 to May 6, 2023. On behalf of Scottsdale, we write in response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (the “Notice”) that Attorney Robert Boyers filed with the Florida Department of Financial Services (the “Department”) on behalf of the Complainant, Ilene Pardon (“the Complainant”), who made a claim for damages against the Insured for bodily injuries she sustained in an accident on or around December 1, 2022. The Notice was electronically filed and accepted by the Department on May 27, 2025. In the Notice, the Complainant alleges that Scottsdale committed one statutory violation regarding her liability claim against the Insured for bodily injuries allegedly caused by the Insured’s negligence: violation of § 624.155(1)(b)(1), Florida Statutes - “[n]ot 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.” According to the Complainant, the Insured was negligent in failing to properly maintain the tennis court (and surrounding fence) that she was playing upon on December 1, 2022, which purportedly caused her to fall and suffer bodily injuries and related lost wages, among other things (the “Incident”). The Complainant claims that the Insured’s alleged negligence renders it clearly liable for her damages, which supposedly exceed the Policy’s applicable $1,000,000 limit. The Complainant maintains that Scottsdale has violated section 624.155(1)(b)(1) by not tendering the Policy’s relevant limit and/or accepting the Complainant’s previous settlement offers. The Complainant’s Notice is deficient for multiple reasons. To begin with, as indicated by the language of the Notice itself, section 624.155(1)(b)(1) concerns an insurer’s good faith efforts in settling claims in so far as such efforts pertain to “its insured” and its insured’s “interests.” In other words, section 624.155(1)(b)(1) violations arise from an insurer’s failure to settle a liability claim when such a failure negatively impacts its insured or results from an insurer’s disregard of its insured’s interests. Complainant has no standing at this time to pursue an alleged violation of section 624.155(1)(b)(1) on behalf of the Insured, which is Naples Tennis Academy LLC. Therefore, section 624.155(1)(b)(1) is inapplicable. Additionally, the Notice does not comply with the requirements of § 624.155(3)(b), Florida Statutes, to detail the allegations with specificity. The Notice cites one sentence of the Policy’s entire coverage form as the sole basis for both: (1) coverage for the Complainant’s claim; and (2) Scottsdale’s purported duty to tender the Policy’s limits prior to any judgment against the Insured. This is plainly inadequate. Further, instead of explaining the alleged prejudice caused to the Insured by Scottsdale’s claim handling (which might actually be relevant to a section 624.155(1)(b)(1) claim brought by the Insured), the Notice largely discusses selective evidence obtained during discovery in an attempt to paint a negative liability picture. The Notice does not allege any facts that would indicate a violation of section 624.155(1)(b)(1) by Scottsdale. Finally, the Notice fails to state what the Complainant contends Scottsdale must do to “cure” the alleged statutory violation cited in the Notice, which further renders the Notice deficient and invalid. The Notice is also factually and legally meritless. Scottsdale has completely fulfilled its contractual and statutory obligations to protect the Insured’s interests throughout the entire claim. Since first receiving notice of the Incident, Scottsdale has been investigating the Complainant’s claim against the Insured pertaining to the Incident and evaluating the Insured’s potential exposure for liability and damages to the Complainant and her husband from the Incident. Scottsdale also retained counsel to defend the Insured in the Complainant’s Lawsuit. Based on Scottsdale’s investigation to date and defense counsel’s evaluations, liability of the Insured for the Incident and the Complainant’s damages is disputed. Moreover, in light of the liability defenses, the reasonable settlement value for the Complainant’s claim against the Insured in the Lawsuit is less than the policy limit and significantly less than the Complainant’s prior settlement demands, which all have exceeded the policy limit. In conclusion, the Complainant has not alleged in the Notice any facts that would support a determination that Scottsdale has engaged in any prohibited conduct or violated the statute section referenced in the Notice. At all times, Scottsdale has acted in utmost good faith towards its insured, Naples Tennis Academy, in handling and defending it against the Complainant’s claim and the Lawsuit. Scottsdale expressly denies that it engaged in any prohibited conduct or violated the statute section referenced in the Notice with respect to this claim. Respectfully yours, /s/ Patricia A. McLean Patricia A. McLean, Esq. cc: Robert Boyers, Esq. rob@boyerslaw.com Counsel for the Complainant Kelly S. Schreiber kelly.schreiber@nationwide.com Claims Adjuster
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