Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     825915
Filing Accepted:  6/9/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
TRIESTE I AT VASARI CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION   First Name  
Street Address * 11041 CORSIA TRIESTE WAY
City, State Zip * BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135
Email Address * PAYDEN@PAYDENANDCOMPANY.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   TRIESTE I AT VASARI CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION   First Name  
Policy # * HCP006735 Claim #* H112491
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*   HERITAGE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 14407
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* OFFICERS, SUPERVISORS, AND OR MANAGEMENT OF HERITAGE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, INCLUDING ALL CLAIMS REPRESENTATIVES, ADJUSTERS, LOSS CONSULTANTS, ENGINEERS, EXPERTS, AND MARTIN SKRMETTA, PAM VIETTI, GARY CARMICHAEL, TORNADO CONSTRUCTION
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. Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“Heritage”) has breached this duty by its handling of the Insured’s, Trieste I at Vasari Condominium Association’s Claim of Loss (Claim Number H112491; D.O.L. 9/28/22). Heritage has failed and/or refused to thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigate and evaluate the Insured’s insurance claim for damages. On or about September 28, 2022, the Insured submitted a claim to Heritage for damages sustained as a result of Hurricane Ian. We have identified the following instances of bad faith conduct on the part of your company: • 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. • Implementing a claim handling process geared solely to the minimization of roof related damages. Specifically, taking a hardline stance on repairability in lieu of roof replacements regardless of evidence supporting the latter. This scheme is meant solely to benefit the carrier while hindering the Insured from obtaining just compensation for the loss. • 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. • Misrepresenting to the Insured the roofs can be repaired and do not need replacement. See correspondence to Insured from Heritage dated February 24, 2025. • Heritage Property and Casualty Insurance Company deliberately and purposefully hired a biased engineering firm, Intertek Engineering, which is routinely used by Heritage to render decisions in which the roofs of the properties, as in this case, can be repaired and do not need replacement. • Failing to act promptly by purposefully delaying the issuance of any payment due and owing to the Insured. • Willfully denying the claim and withholding benefits without a reasonable basis based on a fair and unbiased investigation. • Heritage assigned the claim to a field adjuster to render a below the deductible estimate in a coordinated attempt to extend its statutory obligations and avoid payment to the Insured in accordance with the policy. • Failure to provide a timely, adequate and/or fair unbiased explanation to the Insured for the lack of payment for their claim for damages sustained to the subject properties as a result of Hurricane Ian. • Failure to acknowledge that the Pioneer Brand concrete tiles installed on the structures are no longer manufactured and no longer have an active State of Florida Notice of Acceptance. • Failure to acknowledge that pre-Ian repairs to the building roofs were also damaged during Hurricane Ian. • Failure to acknowledge and account for all fresh fractured and wind-shifted tiles, right/left corner and interlock fractures, point load fracturing of the tile, de-bonded and fractured ridge and hip caps, pre-Hurricane Ian repairs, and failed insert repairs to buildings 11041, 11051, 11061, and 11071 at Trieste I Condominiums as a result of wind from Hurricane Ian. • Failure to acknowledge that given the extent of the damage to the roofs, and based on a reasonable degree of certainty, proper remediation of the wind-related damages from Hurricane Ian cannot return the residential roofing systems installed on buildings 11041, 11051, 11061, and 11071 at Trieste I Condominiums to their pre-loss conditions and will require complete replacement of all tiles, underlayment and flashing installed at the subject properties. • Failure to acknowledge and account for all fractured and wind shifted tiles, right/left corner fractures, interlock fractures, point load fracturing of the tile, de-bonded ridge and hip caps, and pre-hurricane Ian repairs at Building 11041 Garages 102-103, 202-203, 104-105, 204-205, Building 11051 Garages 102-103, 202-203, 104-204, Building 11061 Garages 102-103, 202-203, 104-204, Building 11071 Garages 102-103, 202-203, 104-105, 204-205. • Failure to acknowledge that the garage roofs will need to have tiles removed, restacked and the underlayment replaced with new underlayment to prevent back lap repairs. • To date, notwithstanding the Insured's pleas otherwise, Heritage 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. Heritage has not properly addressed, evaluated and paid all of the covered damages that were caused by this loss. The policyholder has maintained the property involved in this claim very efficiently before the catastrophe of Hurricane Ian. Following Hurricane Ian, the claim was timely submitted to Heritage and the policyholder and its representatives cooperated with Heritage's requests for inspections and information. Heritage has not properly addressed, evaluated and paid all of the covered damages caused by this loss. Heritage's assessment of this claim found wind damage to each of the buildings within the association. However, in this assessment, Heritage proposed to harvest tiles from one duplex building in the community that it would pay for an entire roof replacement on and re-use those tiles for the repair of the other buildings. The issue with this is the fact that harvesting the tiles from the one building and using them for the other buildings' repairs will not restore this association property to its pre-loss condition. First, the tiles will be damaged when removed from the building in an effort to save them for use on the other buildings. These are mechanically fastened tiles that were existing on the buildings at the time of Hurricane Ian, and it will not be possible to harvest the number of tiles that will be needed for the other buildings. Even if the harvesting theory is possible, being that the tiles are mechanically fastened, it will be impossible to adhere replacement tiles to the decking appropriately to the other buildings where repairs are being proposed. The tiles have been uplifted by the winds of the Hurricane causing the fasteners to back out and rattle and create large openings and a nail will not fasten the tiles onto the decking properly now. Proposing some other method of adhering the tiles to the decking in those areas on those roofs will not be restoring the property to its pre-loss condition, which is the point of property insurance. There are holes through the membranes of these roofs where uplift has occurred or where tile fasteners will be removed by the proposed method of repair. The holes through the membrane were not there before this loss. Furthermore, Heritage's proposed repair through this harvesting concept fails to address the uplift damage and backing of fasteners for the mechanically attached roof assemblies and the punctures and damage to the membranes of the roofs that have occurred because of Hurricane Ian. As such, it is impossible to conduct the repair that Heritage proposes in the estimate. It is clear that Heritage is adjusting this loss and misrepresenting the fact that this repair is even possible. Additionally, there is significant uplift of tiles across these buildings from Hurricane Ian that has resulted in additional damages to the membranes of these roofs in addition to the tile issues and repairs addressed above. 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 Heritage 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 Hurricane Ian claims. To date, notwithstanding the Insured’s pleas otherwise, Heritage 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 its pre-loss condition. Heritage 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. Heritage has not properly paid all of the covered damages. These actions by Heritage 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 Heritage continues to wrongfully refuse to tender the insurance proceeds that are due and owing them. The concept of insurance is the granting of timely and prompt indemnity or security against a contingent loss. Florida Statutes 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 they were in prior to the loss as quickly as possible. Heritage breached this duty. The Insured was and still is forced to expend out of pocket monies to submit the insurance claim to force Heritage to honor its obligations under the insurance policy to pay all the insurance proceeds due and owing them. Heritage has clearly displayed bad faith in its handling, processing, and wrongful delay of this claim. The Insured merely requests that Heritage "adjust the loss" with them in accordance with the policy of insurance for which Heritage has accepted a premium, and in accordance with Florida law. Heritage’s conduct has been reckless and unfair to its Insured and has caused and continues to cause additional damages. We demand that Heritage 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 Heritage's bad faith conduct, including but not limited to, fees and costs related to the retention of personnel/counsel required to challenge Heritage’s improper handling of this claim. [As of this moment, the damages found and evaluated by the insured(s) value at minimum $1,154,916.57, and we request payment in that sum as a curative measure to the conduct described herein.]
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
ncarlisle@heritagepci.com 07-29-2025 July 29, 2025 VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION Florida Department of Insurance Civil Remedy Section 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 VIA Certified Mail: E-mail Correspondence: smarker@merlinlawgroup.com Trieste I At Vasari Condominium Association c/o Shaun Marker, Esq. 1 North Clematis Street, Suite 510 West Palm Beach FL, 33401 RE: Complainant: Trieste I At Vasari Condominium Association Policy No. HCP006735 Claim No. H112491 Filing No. 825915 Filing Accepted: 06/09/2025 To Whom It May Concern: This correspondence constitutes Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company’s (hereinafter “Heritage”) response to the Civil Remedy Notice (“CRN”) (filing number 825915 with a filing acceptance date of 06/09/2025) of Insurer Violation filed by Shaun Marker, Esq., on behalf of Complainant, regarding the claim listed above. Our office represents Heritage in reference to the claim presented by Trieste I at Vasari Condominium Association (“Complainant”) for alleged damages sustained to the subject property on or about September 28, 2022, 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 Trieste I at Vasari Condominium Association. 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 §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. Specifically, Heritage conducted three separate inspections of the subject property utilizing an independent adjusting firm, TSI Adjusting (“TSI”), a general contracting firm, Tornado Construction of Florida, LLC (“Tornado”), and a forensic engineering firm, Intertek (“Intertek”). In addition, two engineersinspected the property to determine the cause and origin of all reported damages, as well as the price and scope of the same. The initial inspection took place with Complainant’s association representative on March 20, 2023. During the inspection, Heritage found limited storm damage to some areas of the property. Thereafter, on November 7, 2023, a reinspection was conducted of the subject property utilizing Intertek, a forensic engineering firm, to review and confirm the cause and origin of all reported damages, as well as the price and scope of same. This inspection took place with Complainant’s representatives. During the inspection Intertek found minimal storm damage to some structures on the property. The estimate for the covered wind damage to the property, which is the responsibility of the Association, totaled $66,474.86. Then on January 3, 2024, Heritage issued its coverage determination letter along with a detailed estimate in the amount of $66,474.86, before considering recoverable depreciation ($3,047.00), and the applicable deductible amounts ($46,685.74). The aforementioned letter also included the specific payment breakdown for each building. After applying recoverable depreciation and the 3% hurricane deductible, a payment of $16,742.12 was issued to Complainant. Following Heritage’s January 3, 2024, coverage determination and payment to the Complainant, as outlined above, Heritage received notification from the Complainant indicating their disagreement with the amount and proposed methodology of engineering repairs to restore the property to its alleged pre-loss condition. To ensure thorough and complete adjustment of the claim, on June 25, 2024, John A. Runkle, P.E. of Intertek, reinspected the property and found damage consistent with the conditions observed at the initial engineering inspection. following the engineering re-inspection, Tornado prepared a comparative estimate in the amount of $45,519.59, which was less than the Intertek estimate for which payment had already been issued. Finally, on February 24, 2025, Heritage sent correspondence to the Complainant indicating that no additional damages were noted, at the engineering re-inspection, and it was confirmed that the roof could, in fact, be repaired per the protocol and methodology outlined following the initial engineering inspection. 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). Notwithstanding the above, Civil Remedy Notice is legally insufficient as it fails to specify who at Heritage committed the alleged violations, when the alleged violations were committed and fails to give specific facts supporting the alleged violations.Here the Notice alleges the reasons for the Notice are the following: Claim Delay The Insureds 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. Claim Denial The Insureds indicate the claim was denied while contradicting itself within the same Civil Remedy Notice filed by Complainant. The Notice states, in pertinent part, “Heritage's assessment of this claim found wind damage to each of the buildings within the association. However, in this assessment, Heritage proposed to harvest tiles from one duplex building in the community that it would pay for an entire roof replacement on and re-use those tiles for the repair of the other buildings.” The Complainant, in its Civil Remedy Notice, acknowledges that Heritage afforded coverage for the claimed loss, yet attempts to perform a routine of legal gymnastics to contort the facts to suit the Claimant’s narrative. In fact, and as acknowledged by instant Civil Remedy Notice, Heritage determined that coverage existed, but the Claimant takes issues with scope or coverage and methodology utilized in proposed protocol of repairs. 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. 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. The Notice alleges the following violations: §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 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. Rather, the Complainant takes issue with the proposed cost of and/or methodology utilized by engineering professionals in the suggested repair protocols. As such, the Notice lacks the specificity to place Heritage on notice of the specific allegations made by the Claimant and fails to comply with Florida Statute §624.155§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 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 underpayment by Heritage. Rather, the Complainant takes issue with the proposed cost of the methodology utilized in the suggested repair process indicated by engineering professionals. §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. In the instant matter, coverage was afforded and payment in the amount of $16,742.12 was issued to Complainant after applying the applicable Hurricane deductibles of $46,685.74 and recoverable depreciation of $3,047.00. An engineering reinspection of the Claimants property occurred and found no additional damages and confirmed that the protocol and methodology outlined following the initial engineering inspection was sufficient and as such no further monies would be forthcoming. The Notice fails to identify any specific item or category in which Heritage failed to compensate the Complainant for in the initial payment to the claimant. As such, the Notice lacks the specificity to place Heritage on notice of the specific allegations made by the Claimant and fails to comply with Florida Statute §624.155 §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 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 refuses to acknowledge that Heritage afforded coverage for the subject claim and issued payment as outlined above. The Complaint, instead, attempts to attack the proposed protocol of repair to return the property to the preloss condition. Notwithstanding the engineering protocol, evidencing a differing engineering opinion, the Notice fails to provide any examples evidencing the alleged material misrepresentation made to the Claimant Heritage. As such, the Notice lacks the specificity to place Heritage on notice of the specific allegations made by the Claimant and fails to comply with Florida Statute §624.155§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 and also sent engineers to conduct inspections, so it is unclear and unsupported how Heritage failed to investigate the loss. As such, the Notice lacks the specificity to place Heritage on notice of the specific allegations made by the Claimant and fails to comply with Florida Statute §624.155 §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. §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 Notice fails to indicate any specific occurrence, topic or communication in which Heritage failed to act promptly with respect to claims. As such, the Notice lacks the specificity to place Heritage on notice of the specific allegations made by the Claimant and fails to comply with Florida Statute §624.155 §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. Heritage undertakes three inspections of the Claimants property, including two inspections by professional engineers. Based on the inspections coverage was afforded and payment in the amount of $16,742.12 was issued to Complainant after applying the applicable Hurricane deductibles of $46,685.74 and recoverable depreciation of $3,047.00. The Notice, on its face, acknowledges coverage was afforded to the Claimant and states, “Heritage's assessment of this claim found wind damage to each of the buildings within the association. However, in this assessment, Heritage proposed to harvest tiles from one duplex building in the community that it would pay for an entire roof replacement on and re-use those tiles for the repair of the other buildings.” In the instant matter, coverage was afforded and payment in the amount of $16,742.12 was issued to Complainant after applying the applicable. Notice lacks the specificity to place Heritage as to on notice of the specific flaws or inadequacies in the investigation of the Claimants’ and fails to comply with Florida Statute §624.155§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 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 January 3, 2024, Heritage issued its coverage determination letter along with a detailed estimate in the amount of $66,474.86, before considering recoverable, nonrecoverable ($3,047.00), and the applicable deductible amounts ($46,685.74). The aforementioned letter also included the specific payment breakdown for each building. After applying recoverable depreciation and the 3% hurricane deductible, a payment of $16,742.12 was issued to Complainant. Following Heritage’s January 3, 2024 coverage determination and payment to the Claimant, Heritage received notification from the Complainant indicating their disagreement with the amount and proposed methodology of engineering repairs to restore the property to its alleged pre-loss condition. To ensure thorough and complete adjustment of the claim, on June 25, 2024, John A. Runkle, P.E. of Intertek, reinspected the property and found damage consistent with the conditions observed at the initial engineering inspection. following the engineering reinspection, Tornado prepared a comparative estimate in the amount of $45,519.59, which was less than the Intertek estimate for which payment had already been issued. Finally, on February 24, 2025, Heritage sent correspondence to the Complainant indicating that no additional damages were noted, at the engineering reinspection, and it was confirmed that the roof could, in fact, be repaired per the protocol and methodology outlined following the initial engineering inspection. The Notice fails to provide the specificity to allow Heritage to comprehend the allegations levied against in accordance with Florida Statute §624.155. §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 January 3, 2024, Heritage issued its coverage determination letter along with a detailed estimate in the amount of $66,474.86, before considering recoverable, nonrecoverable ($3,047.00), and the applicable deductible amounts ($46,685.74). The aforementioned letter also included the specific payment breakdown for each building. After applying recoverable depreciation and the 3% hurricane deductible, a payment of $16,742.12 was issued to Complainant. Following Heritage’s January 3, 2024 coverage determination and payment to the Claimant, Heritage received notification from the Complainant indicating their disagreement with the amount and proposed methodology of engineering repairs to restore the property to its alleged pre-loss condition. To ensure thorough and complete adjustment of the claim, on June 25, 2024, John A. Runkle, P.E. of Intertek, reinspected the property and found damage consistent with the conditions observed at the initial engineering inspection. following the engineering reinspection, Tornado prepared a comparative estimate in the amount of $45,519.59, which was less than the Intertek estimate for which payment had already been issued. Finally, on February 24, 2025, Heritage sent correspondence to the Complainant indicating that no additional damages were noted, at the engineering reinspection, and it was confirmed that the roof could, in fact, be repaired per the protocol and methodology outlined following the initial engineering inspection. The Notice fails to provide the specificity to allow Heritage to comprehend the allegations levied against in accordance with Florida Statute §624.155.§626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g) Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim. The Insureds fail to state who, how and when Heritage failed to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for processing the claim or any other pertinent facts to allow Heritage to understand the basis of these allegation and as such, fails to comply with Florida Statute §624.155 §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h) Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary. The Insureds fail to state who, how and when Heritage failed to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for processing the claim or any other pertinent facts to allow Heritage to understand the basis of these allegations. 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. If you have any questions, please contact our office anytime. Sincerely, /s/ Andrew Bruce, Esq. Andrew Bruce, Esquire (727) 465-4711 AB/rr
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