Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     825472
Filing Accepted:  6/5/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
INTERNATIONAL VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC.   First Name  
Street Address * 3700 INVERRARY DRIVE #101
City, State Zip * LAUDERHILL, FL 33319
Email Address * 2023PRES@IVCONDO.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   INTERNATIONAL VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC.   First Name   SHAUN
Policy # * AMC-37925-01 Claim #* 4233687
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* MARKER First Name * SHAUN Initial J
Street Address* ONE NORTH CLEMATIS STREET, SUITE 510
City, State Zip* WEST PALM BEACH , FL 33401
Email Address * SMARKER@MERLINLAWGROUP.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   AMERICAN COASTAL INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 12968
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* OFFICERS, SUPERVISORS, AND OR MANAGEMENT OF AMERICAN COASTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INCLUDING ALL ADJUSTERS, CLAIM REPRESENTATIVES, FIELD ADJUSTERS, ENGINEERS AND OTHER EXPERTS, AND CLAIM REPRESENTATIVES/ADJUSTERS AND ACCOUNT MANAGERS OF SEDGWICK DELEGAT
Type of Insurance * Commercial Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
Claim Denial
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)(2) Making claims payments to insureds or beneficiaries not accompanied by a statement setting forth the coverage under which payments are being made.
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)(2) A material misrepresentation made to an insured or any other person having an interest in the proceeds payable under such contract or policy, for the purpose and with the intent of effecting settlement of such claims, loss, or damage under such contract or policy on less favorable terms than those provided in, and contemplated by, such contract or policy.
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)(e) Failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and, as to partial coverage, the dollar amount or extent of coverage, or failing to provide a written statement that the claim is being investigated, upon the written request of the insured within 30 days after proof-of-loss statements have been completed.
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)(3)(g) Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h) Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Building coverage provisions; additional coverages; duties in event of loss policy provisions; all terms and conditions of Section I of the insurance policy; the insurance policy's definition section; the insurance policy's exclusion of coverage provisions; loss payment policy provision; loss settlement provision; the declarations page; we will adjust all losses with you.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. American Coastal Insurance Company (“American Coastal”) has breached this duty by its handling of the Insured’s, International Village Association, Inc.’s Claim of Loss (Claim Number 4233687; D.O.L. 4/13/23). American Coastal Insurance Company has failed and/or refused to thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigate and evaluate the Insured’s insurance claim for damages. On or about April 13, 2023, the Insured submitted a claim to American Coastal for damages sustained as a result of wind and hail. We have identified the following instances of bad faith conduct on the part of your company: • Refusing to pay for necessary repairs and attempting to coerce us into accepting a lower settlement amount by failing to properly consider all applicable statutes and building code requirements both at the state and local level. • Implementing a claim handling process geared solely to the minimization of roof, interior and exterior related damages. Specifically, taking a hardline stance against full payment for all damages despite evidence supporting the need for same. This scheme is meant solely to benefit the carrier while hindering the insured from obtaining just compensation for the loss. • Purposefully minimizing the value of the claim by using biased estimating software/pricing and low-balling the cost of repairs. Specifically, estimations and repair costs have been purposefully devalued to the benefit of the insurance company despite knowledge that these costs are woefully deficient. • Failing to provide full payment for wind damage to the roof, interior and exterior when there was obvious and apparent damage to the roof, exterior and interior due to wind/hail that occurred on April 13, 2023 to the subject property. • Misrepresenting that the roof coverings are all damaged from “age related deterioration, prior repairs, pre-existing damages, mechanical damage, manufacturing imperfections and improper installation to the flat build-up and shingle roofing,” and that “there were no damages to the building enclosure elements caused by wind or hail on or about the reported date of loss.” See correspondence to Insured dated October 11, 2024 from Sedgwick Delegated Authority. • Failure to acknowledge and take into account all evidence of damage resulting from wind and hail that occurred to the subject property on April 13, 2023. • Failure to acknowledge that the low sloped roofing systems installed on the Bordeaux, Nottingham, Orleans and Yorkshire buildings have experienced wind and hail impact damage as a result of the severe thunderstorm event of April 13, 2023. Based upon expert training, visual and physical observations, and a reasonable degree of certainty, proper remediation of the damaged roofs cannot return each roof to pre-loss conditions and require the complete replacement of all shingles, underlayment and flashing on Bordeaux, Nottingham, Orleans and Yorkshire. • American Coastal performed underwriting inspections of the subject property and knew and was aware of the condition of these buildings’ roofs before this loss occurred. American Coastal decided to accept the risk, write coverage and accepted a premium of $786,334.00. These actions on the part of your company are unacceptable, and are in violation of our insurance policy and the duty of good faith and fair dealing that American Coastal owes to its policyholders. Based on conduct to date, these practices occur with such frequency as to constitute a general claims handling process/business practice imbedded within the company’s management of wind/hail claims. To date, notwithstanding the Insured’s pleas otherwise, American Coastal has continued to refuse to acknowledge its obligation to tender all insurance proceed monies due and owing the Insured or assist the Insured in mitigation of the damages. The insurer has failed and refused to acknowledge coverage and restore the Insured to pre-loss condition. American Coastal has sufficient information upon which to evaluate the Insured’s claim for damages, and certainly has been provided with an independent means by which to determine the amount of loss. The Insured has otherwise fully complied with the insurer's requests for post-loss compliance. American Coastal has not properly paid all of the covered damages. These actions by American Coastal occur with such frequency to indicate a general business practice of the company. The Insured has complied with the policy of insurance and Florida law, and American Coastal continues to wrongfully refuse to tender the insurance proceeds that are due and owing the Insured. The concept of insurance is the granting of timely and prompt indemnity or security against a contingent loss. Florida statute section 624.02 defines "insurance" as a contract whereby one undertakes to indemnify another or pay a specified amount or a determinable benefit upon determinable contingencies. Inherent is the fact that payment must be made timely and promptly so that the Insured may be put back into the position the Insured was in prior to the loss as quickly as possible. American Coastal breached this duty. The Insured was and still is forced to expend out of pocket monies to submit the insurance claim to force American Coastal to honor its obligations under the insurance policy to pay all the insurance proceeds due and owing the Insured. American Coastal has clearly displayed bad faith in its handling, processing, and wrongful delay of this claim. The Insured merely requests that American Coastal "adjust the loss" with them in accordance with the policy of insurance for which American Coastal has accepted a premium, and in accordance with Florida law. American Coastal’s conduct has been reckless and unfair to its Insured and has caused and continues to cause additional damages. We demand that American Coastal immediately take steps to rectify the situation and handle this claim in a fair and appropriate manner. This includes providing full and fair compensation for the damages incurred and for any additional costs and expenses incurred as a result of American Coastal 's bad faith conduct, including but not limited to, fees and costs related to the retention of personnel/counsel required to challenge American Coastal’s improper handling of this claim. [As of this moment, the damages found and evaluated by the insured(s) value at minimum of $3,950,000.00 in new monies to settle all issues of this claim in exchange for a release. This amount is for replacement of the mansard roofs on the residential buildings and some flat roof coatings. We request payment in that sum as a curative measure to the conduct described herein.]
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
joseph@becklawpa.com 06-23-2025 Department of Financial Services Civil Remedy Section 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0322 Re: Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation Complainant : International Village Association, Inc. Insured : International Village Association, Inc. Policy Number : AMC-37925-01 Claim No. : 4233687 DFS File Number : 825472 Acceptance Date : June 5, 2025 Insurer : American Coastal Insurance Company To Whom It May Concern: Please be advised that we represent American Coastal Insurance Company (“AmCoastal”) in the above-referenced matter. Kindly consider this to be AmCoastal’s report to the Department on the disposition of the alleged violations. AmCoastal maintains that it has not been in any violation of the law and that the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation (“CRN”) filed by International Village Association, Inc. (“International Village”) is defective on its face and fails to comply with the specificity requirements under Florida Statute 624.155 and Form DFS-10-363. As such, AmCoastal objects to the Department’s acceptance of the above-referenced CRN. In order for an insured to maintain a first-party bad faith action against an insurer, the insured must satisfy two conditions precedent: (1) file a civil remedy notice in accordance with the Bad Faith Statute; and (2) obtain a determination of liability and the extent of covered damages pursuant to the underlying insurance contract. See Vest v. Travelers Insurance Co., 753 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 2000); Lane v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co., 71 F. Supp. 2d 1255 (S.D. Fla. 1999); see also Blanchard v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 575 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 1991). International Village has not obtained a judgement against AmCoastal and therefore shall not bring an action pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 624.155. Nonetheless, AmCoastal maintains the CRN is deficient as a matter of law. By way of background, this matter involves alleged wind and/or hail damage that reportedly occurred on or about April 13, 2023 yet was first reported by a public adjusting company, Ask An Adjuster, on or about May 22, 2024, an approximate four hundred five (405) day delay. Upon receipt of International Village’s untimely reported claim, AmCoastal assigned claim number 4233687 of which the Insured has alleged is the subject of this CRN. In the course of AmCoastal’s investigation, and contrary to the allegations contained in the CRN, AmCoastal promptly issued correspondence, including but not limited to, acknowledging receipt of the Insured’s claim, acknowledging receipt of Ask An Adjuster’s Letter of Representation, providing notice of account manager and/or field adjuster assignment, as well as reserving its rights due to the untimely report of the subject claim. AmCoastal further requested International Village comply with the Duties In The Event Of Loss Or Damage policy conditions and requested information/documentation critical to AmCoastal’s investigative efforts, including any engineering or expert reports which address the nature or cause of damage being claimed under American Coastal’s policy, and any photographs taken by the engineer or expert; interior photos and estimates, as well as list of interior damages; Association maintenance records for the past eight (8) years; Association Meeting Minutes for the past eight (8) years; estimates, invoices, receipts, and contracts for work performed or to be performed in relation to the damage reported for this claim; any roof repair estimates for the date of loss; all internal incident reports, maintenance requests, work orders, etc. relating to the areas being claimed as damaged; any reports, including appraisals, prepared by or on behalf of the Association which speak to the condition of the property prior to the date of loss; any photographs, videos or otherwise which depict the condition of the property at any time, both before and after the date of the loss; any other documentation which supports the Association’s contention that the claimed damage was due to a covered cause of loss; and sworn statement and proof of loss. Notwithstanding AmCoastal’s repeated requests, International Village failed to provide and/or failed to timely provide documentation to substantiate their claim. In continued efforts to obtain any and all supporting information, and contrary to the allegations contained in the CRN, AmCoastal maintained thorough investigation efforts and retained a licensed independent field adjuster, Cynthia Johnson of Allcat Claims Services, and an independent senior professional engineer, Mark Churpek of EFI Global, Inc., to inspect the subject property on AmCoastal’s behalf. Exterior and roof inspections proceeded over the course of several days, June 25, 2024 through June 27, 2024; however, despite AmCoastal’s request, International Village did not make interiors available for inspection until October 28, 2024 through October 30, 2024. EFI Global, Inc. implemented a systematic approach to provide a basis for its legitimate scientific and engineering processes. Based upon physical inspections, information obtained from the Florida Building Code, Broward County Property Appraiser Office, Nearmap, National Weather Service, site-specific CoreLogic Wind and Hail Verification Reports, Nearmap imagery, examination of historical and inspection photographs, notes and additional references, together with accepted engineering principles, education, professional training and/or extensive experience in this area of expertise, EFI Global, Inc. ultimately opined that there was no wind or hail damage observed to the buildings’ exterior that could be attributed to the reported date of loss. Contrary to the allegations contained in the CRN, EFI Global, Inc’s report explicitly cites any and all damage and/or observations to each of the twelve (12) multi-story, multi-unit residential buildings, and identified all investigative efforts and information available for review in forming their opinions. Further, Allcat Claims Services additionally opined that, due to the untimely report of the subject claim whereas intervening factors and events impacted the subject property, the conditions observed to the interiors of the property were unable to be attributed to the reported date of loss. As is evident from the aforementioned, AmCoastal consistently sought supporting documents or information from the Insured and consistently reported all pending information necessary to evaluate the reported claim. Accordingly, pursuant with the terms, conditions, definitions, limitations and exclusions of the subject policy, AmCoastal properly issued correspondence dated October 11, 2024 and February 19, 2025 citing that, based on the opinions obtained and information submitted to date, no payment was due or owing. The coverage determination correspondence further notified International Village of its failure to comply with pertinent post-loss duties and obligations applicable to the Insured’s policy. Accordingly, AmCoastal swiftly investigated and adjudicated the loss, afforded a coverage decision in accordance with all Policy conditions and Florida Law, and advised International Village to report any additional concerns or information to AmCoastal in a prompt manner as per Policy conditions and duties. As is evident from the aforementioned, the allegations contained in the Notice are without merit. Notwithstanding, International Village, through legal counsel, prematurely filed the subject CRN on June 5, 2025, which is a pre-requisite to a bad faith lawsuit under Florida Statute 624.155. This CRN alleges that AmCoastal engaged in “Claim Delay, Claim Denial and Unfair Trade Practice”. Additionally, the CRN alleges that AmCoastal has violated Florida Administrative Codes and Statutes. On the face, this CRN merely contains accusations without any factual specificity to support them. As is evident from the aforementioned, the allegations contained in the Notice are without merit. AmCoastal contends that the CRN filed by the Insured is deficient as a matter of law as it fails to comply with Fla. Stat. §624.155. See 316, Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Ins. Co., 526 F. Supp. 2d 1187 (N.D. Fla. 2008); Rousso v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., 2010 WL 7367059, (S. D. Fla. 2010); Heritage Corp. of South Fla. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, P.A., 580 F. Supp. 2d 1294 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co., 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). Pursuant to § 624.155(3)(b), Fla. Stat., the Notice “shall state with specificity” the following information: 1. The statutory provision, including the specific language, which the authorized insurer allegedly violated; 2. the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation; 3. the name of any individual involved in the violation; 4. reference to specific policy language that is relevant to the violation, if any. . . .; 5. a statement that the notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section. In addition to the criteria cited above, the Florida legislature created “Form DFS-10-363”, which is a Civil Remedy Notice form that lays out an additional fifteen (15) requirements: 1. Complainant’s Name; 2. Complainant’s Address; 3. Complainant’s email address; 4. Complainant type (Insured or otherwise) 5. Insured’s Name; 6. Insurance Policy Number; 7. Insurance Claim Number; 8. Attorney’s Name; 9. Attorney’s Address; 10. Attorney’s email Address; 11. Type of Insurer (authorized or otherwise) 12. Name of Insurer; 13. Address of Insurer; 14. Type of Insurance (Commercial Property & casualty or otherwise); and 15. Reason for Notice. Similar to the five (5) criteria specifically listed in Fla. Stat. § 624.155, the fifteen (15) additional items required by the Department of Financial Services must be correctly stated with specificity in order to satisfy a condition precedent to bringing an action under Fla. Stat. § 624.155. See, Pin-Pon Corp. v. Landmark Am. Ins. Co., 20-CV-14013, 2020 WL 3038576, at * 3-4 (holding that the plaintiff’s Civil Remedy Notice was deficient as a matter of law because the email address listed for the Complainant was the attorney’s email address); Mathurin v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins, Co., 285 F. Supp. 3d 1311 (M.D. Fla. 2018) (holding that the correct policy number, one of the above listed requirements promulgated by the Florida Department of Financial Services, must be on a Civil Remedy Notice for it to be valid because Fla. Stat. § 624.155 requires a Civil Remedy Notice to have the information required by the Florida Department of Financial Services). To put it simply, a CRN is defective as a matter of law if any of the twenty (20) mandatory items cited above are missing or otherwise incorrect. As already mentioned, AmCoastal maintains the CRN filed by International Village is defective on its face as it fails to meet the requirements of Form DFS-10-363 and Fla. Stat. § 624.155 on several grounds. First and foremost, the Notice fails to properly name individuals involved in the alleged claims violation as required by Florida Statute § 624.155(3)(b)3. With respect to the requirement to identify the person or persons representing the insurer most responsible for or knowledgeable of the facts giving rise to the allegations, the Notice makes no reference to any individual. Rather, the CRN cites “Officers, Supervisors, and or Management of American Coastal Insurance Company, including all Adjusters, Claim Representatives, Field Adjusters, Engineers and other Experts, and Claim Representatives/Adjusters and Account Managers of Sedgwick Delegat.” This failure to identify, by name, individuals allegedly involved with the purported claim violations prevents AmCoastal from addressing all alleged issues and is one of the reasons why the Notice does not comply with F.S. § 624.155. Second, with respect to the statutory requirement to set forth with specificity the “facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation,” the Notice fails to allege any relevant conduct on the part of AmCoastal that would actually violate any policy provision or statute. The Notice contains conjecture and supposition as opposed to any facts supporting the conclusory allegations. A written notice which is vague and “shotgun” in nature or is written in general terms fails to satisfy the specificity requirement of the statute. See Heritage Corp. of South Fla., 580 F. Supp. 2d at 1300; 316, Inc., 625 F. Supp. 2d at 1193; see also Rousso, 2010 WL 7367059 at *3-6; Valenti v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America, 2006 WL 1627276 (M.D. Fla. 2006). The CRN filed by International Village merely contains boilerplate broad language used routinely in a litany of other filings. These CRNs largely include the same generic language, many use the same sentences throughout, and include largely the same allegations. With regards to the CRN, it contains the same generic improper and legally insufficient allegations that are contained within every CRN filed by the Insured’s legal counsel, including the approximately three hundred (300) Notices the Insured’s legal counsel has filed in the last three (3) years alone. Moreover, the Complainant should not be able to simply file the same lengthy generic CRN without containing the requisite specificity. The purpose of a CRN is to place the carrier on notice of specific violations so that they can be corrected during the statutory “cure” period. This CRN fails to meet this requirement and as such, should not be able to proceed on such a defective and improper CRN that contains nothing but accusations and conclusions without any specificity to the purported statutory violations. The CRN alleges that the carrier has, among others, “breached this duty” of “public trust”, “failed and/or refused to thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigate and evaluate” the subject claim. These allegations as stated are improper, factually incorrect, do not comply with the specificity requirements set forth in Florida Statute 624.155, and are unfairly vague to put the carrier on notice of any alleged violations. As stated, after AmCoastal was placed on notice of alleged wind and hail damage approximately four hundred five (405) days after the loss event, the carrier immediately issued requests for information and/or documentation and promptly retained both a licensed independent field adjuster and independent professional engineer to inspect and evaluate the insured property. Contrary to the allegations contained in the CRN, AmCoastal sought information and documents from the Insured in order to evaluate the subject matter, affording the Insured every opportunity to provide information to support its claim. As a result of the inspections and International Village’s failure to comply with its duties and obligations of the policy, AmCoastal was unable to afford coverage. AmCoastal provided International Village detailed correspondence and reports supporting its position. As such, AmCoastal maintains that it acted fairly and honestly to make a proper determination in light of all the information known and provided. The CRN attempts to allege unfair settlement offers or improper estimates; however, this fails to correlate with the subject claim as no coverage was afforded. The CRN vaguely attempts to proclaim EFI Global, Inc failed to properly evaluate or investigate the subject matter and made “misrepresentations” about the condition of the property, yet fails to address the specificity of EFI’s evaluation and accepted engineering principles whatsoever, yet another example of the CRN’s absolute failure to provide relevant specificity of facts or circumstances giving rise to any supposed violations. The CRN further alleges that by way of this conduct, AmCoastal is in violation of Florida Statutes §§ 624.155 and §§ 626.9541. On its face, this is nothing more than a recitation of alleged statutory violations, without providing any specificity as to the facts of the alleged claim, and thus, is statutorily deficient. In fact, many of the alleged violations contradict the facts relevant to the subject claim, such as the Insured’s recitation of §§ 624.155(1)(b)(2) despite no claim payments being issued to or on behalf the Insured, and recitation of §§ 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), §§ 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), §§ 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), §§ 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), despite a thorough claim investigation, carrier attempts to obtain information, prompt acknowledgement to Insured communications, and detailed coverage explanation. AmCoastal asserts that it has acted in compliance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, and all enumerated Florida Statutes and administrative code(s). The allegations contained in the Notice are wholly conclusory and factually incorrect. Third, the Notice fails to satisfy Fla. Stat. § 624.155(3)(b)(4) in that it fails to reference specific policy language relevant to the alleged violation with any degree of specificity. In particular, the Notice cites to certain vast portions of a policy without any specificity to the policy at issue and without specifically delineating what specific subsection was violated or how its relevant to the subject claim. In reality, the broad policy headings referenced show no reference to a homeowners or commercial insurance policy, again evidencing the “copy and paste” nature routinely found in the Insured’s legal counsel’s CRN filings. The Insured also fails to provide factual specificity for any purported violations of the policy at issue, thereby preventing AmCoastal from responding in regard to what policy language is relevant to the alleged bad faith violation(s). As such, the Notice is insufficient as a matter of law to satisfy the specificity requirement of Fla. Stat. § 624.155(3)(b)(4). Finally, the Notice fails with respect to its requirement to specify how AmCoastal may “cure” the alleged violations. The CRN demands AmCoastal provide “full and fair compensation for the damages incurred and for any additional costs and expenses incurred as a result of American Coastal 's bad faith conduct, including but not limited to, fees and costs related to the retention of personnel/counsel required to challenge American Coastal’s improper handling of this claim. [As of this moment, the damages found and evaluated by the insured(s) value at minimum of $3,950,000.00 in new monies to settle all issues of this claim in exchange for a release.” The purpose of a Civil Remedy Notice is to provide a carrier with one last opportunity to “cure” the alleged violations. In this instance, the only real “cure” that the Notice is seeking is full payment of a random sum unilaterally determined by the Insured, notwithstanding AmCoastal’s right to investigate and adjust the loss, and in fact is a sum not support by any information or documents submitted to date. In addition, the Notice seeks remedies that are “extra-contractual”. A demand for a cure is properly limited to the four corners of the policy and thus the extra-contractual demands render the Notice insufficient on its face. In fact, the Florida Supreme Court has recognized that a Civil Remedy Notice is invalid if the curative action demands more than the payment of contractual benefits under the insurer’s policy. See, Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1283 (Fla. 2000). Subsequent to Talat, Florida courts, and federal courts applying Florida law, reaffirmed the rule articulated in Talat. See, Do v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 1:17-CV-23041-JLK, 2019 WL 331295, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 25, 2019) (finding that a plaintiff’s Civil Remedy Notice was invalid as a matter of law because the curative actions demanded did not concern payment of contractual benefits owned under the insurer’s policy). Neither the Policy nor Florida law requires an insurance carrier to pay any and all amount an Insured presents as the cost of repair for alleged damages to an insured property, nor that of extra-contractual amounts for attorney’s fees and costs. Based on the information outlined above, AmCoastal maintains that each and every allegation of the CRN is incorrect, and this the CRN should be dismissed. AmCoastal requests that the DFS re-consider its acceptance of the above-referenced CRN and further requests that the DFS provide AmCoastal a list of the guidelines and requirements utilized by the DFS in determining to accept this defective CRN. As outlined above, AmCoastal maintains that it has not acted in bad faith in handling the Insured’s claim, has not been in violation of any law, and has properly fulfilled its obligations to the pursuant to the terms, conditions, exclusions, and exemptions of the Policy regarding coverage for the claimed loss. The subject policy of insurance, governing statutes, and case law only permit submission of a claim and payment for covered losses. While an insurance company is required to settle claims that should be settled, it is not required to settle claims that are legitimately contested. Florida law continually affirms the principle that an insurer has the right to investigate claims presented for payment. An insurance company is expressly afforded an opportunity to evaluate its rights and liabilities. The alleged statutory violations and factual allegations set forth in the Notice are devoid and without merit. AmCoastal further maintains that the CRN, as filed, is defective on its face as it fails to meet the specificity requirements of Florida Statute 624.155 Should the Department require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, ASHLEY JOSEPH, ESQ.
Acknowledgement
* The submitter hereby states that this notice is given in order to perfect the rights of the person(s) damaged to pursue civil remedies authorized by Section 624.155, Florida Statutes.

Before submitting a Notice using this system, please verify that all text has been entered correctly and completely. Once the Notice has been submitted, the text cannot be changed or deleted.




DFS-10-363
Rev. 10/14/2008