Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     826213
Filing Accepted:  6/10/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
HONDO CREEK REAL ESTATE OPERATIONS LLC   First Name  
Street Address * 3880 E. COUNTY HIGHWAY 30A, UNIT 104
City, State Zip * SANTA ROSA BEACH, FL 32459
Email Address * DONNYJ@YAHOO.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   HONDO CREEK REAL ESTATE OPERATIONS LLC   First Name  
Policy # * LSP4818000D Claim #* 1276167
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* OLADIPO First Name * ABIDEMI Initial A.
Street Address* 12226 N. 56TH STREET
City, State Zip* TAMPA , FLORIDA 33617
Email Address * AOLADIPO@MSO.LAW
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, LONDON
NAIC Company Code
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S, LONDON; DAVIES, KEVIN CASE, LYNN ROTHMAN; ALONG WITH ALL ADJUSTERS, SUPERVISORS, MANAGERS, AND INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH OR RETAINED BY THE INSURER IN THE CLAIM.
Type of Insurance * Commercial Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
Claim Delay
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Unfair Trade Practice
* Statutory provision(s) which the insurer allegedly violated.
 
624.155(1)(b)(1) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests.
624.155(1)(b)(3) Except as to liability coverages, failing to promptly settle claims, when the obligation to settle a claim has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(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.

HOMEOWNERS 6 – UNIT-OWNERS FORM AGREEMENT We will provide the insurance described in this policy in return for the premium and compliance with all applicable provisions of this policy. SECTION I – PROPERTY COVERAGES A. Coverage A – Dwelling 1. We cover: a. The alterations, appliances, fixtures and improvements which are part of the building contained within the "residence premises"; b. Items of real property which pertain exclusively to the "residence premises"; c. Property which is your insurance responsibility under a corporation or association of property owners agreement; or d. Structures owned solely by you, other than the "residence premises", at the location of the "residence premises" … B. Coverage C – Personal Property 1. Covered Property We cover personal property owned or used by an "insured" while it is anywhere in the world. After a loss and at your request, we will cover personal property owned by: a. Others while the property is on the part of the "residence premises" occupied by an "insured"; or b. A guest or a "residence employee", while the property is in any residence occupied by an "insured". 2. Limit For Property At Other Residences Our limit of liability for personal property usually located at an "insured's" residence, other than the "residence premises", is 10% of the limit of liability for Coverage C, or $1,000, whichever is greater. (…) … C. Coverage D – Loss Of Use The limit of liability for Coverage D is the total limit for the coverages in 1. Additional Living Expense, 2. Fair Rental Value and 3. Civil Authority Prohibits Use below.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

On May 6, 2023, Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London (“Lloyd’s”) issued policy number LSP4818000D (the “Policy”) to Hondo Creek Real Estate Operations LLC (“Insured”) for its property located at 3880 E. County Highway 30A, Unit 104, Santa Rosa Beach, Florida 32459 (“Insured Property”) for the period of May 6, 2023, to May 6, 2024. The Policy provides Coverage A – Additions & Alterations (RCV) limits of $241,500.00; Coverage C – Personal Property (RCV) limits of $50,000.00; and Coverage D – Loss of Use limits of $23,000.00. The Policy provides coverage for direct damage to the Insured Property as a result of water damage. On March 9, 2024, the sewer line running through the building ruptured, causing significant damage to the Insured Property. The resulting sewage backup affected multiple units, permeating drywall and causing leaks throughout the Insured Property. The Insured Property sustained extensive damage, particularly in the kitchen, where the cabinetry was rendered unusable and the countertop was compromised. The affected kitchen wall was removed along with the damaged cabinets, and all kitchen appliances were found sitting in sewage. Additionally, the master bedroom and its wood flooring were saturated with sewage, necessitating the removal of flooring in every bedroom. Upon discovering the damage, the property manager of the Insured Property, Real Joy Vacations, retained Coastal Cottage Maintenance to conduct an initial inspection, as reflected in Invoice No. 2384. As part of their efforts, Coastal Cottage Maintenance removed the toilet in the master bedroom, drained the line, and attempted to clear the obstruction, for which they charged $509.00. Ultimately, due to the extent of the damage described above, the Insured Property was rendered uninhabitable and could not be rented. Upon discovering the damages, the Insured’s representative promptly reported the claim to Lloyd’s and provided Lloyd’s and its agents with unfettered access to the Insured Property to adjust the loss. Lloyd’s acknowledged the claim and assigned it Claim No. 1276167. Lloyd’s also appointed a third-party claims administrator, Davies, to handle the adjustment process. Davies, in turn, assigned field adjuster Kevin Case to inspect and assess the loss. Mr. Case conducted an inspection of the Insured Property on April 9, 2024. Unfortunately, Mr. Case was either unable or unqualified to properly identify the full extent of the damage or to competently adjust the loss. This became apparent on May 29, 2024, when he issued an itemized estimate that substantially overlooked the majority of the damage to the Insured Property. The estimate also grossly undervalued the cost of repairs, failing to reflect current local prices for materials, labor, and required permits. The May 29, 2024, estimate totaled $59,750.28. After applying depreciation in the amount of $7,253.43, a $2,500 deductible, and accounting for amounts exceeding policy limits totaling $44,996.85, Lloyd’s calculated a net payment of only $5,000.00—an amount wholly insufficient to restore the Insured Property to its pre-loss condition. Regrettably, the retention of adjusters and agents, including Davies and Mr. Case, who routinely undervalue and misrepresent claim damages, appears to be a recurring business practice by Lloyd’s—not only in connection with this claim, but in numerous others across the state of Florida. This conduct reflects a failure to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims, in direct violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), Florida Statutes. Moreover, it constitutes a misrepresentation of pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to the coverages at issue, in violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), Florida Statutes. Due to Lloyd’s ongoing failure to properly adjust the loss and to consider all relevant facts and circumstances surrounding the claim, the Insured was compelled to undertake the adjustment of its own loss. To that end, the Insured retained a licensed public adjuster, Noble Public Adjusting Group (“NPAG”), to assist in the presentation of the claim to Lloyd’s. On March 21, 2024, NPAG conducted an inspection of the Insured Property. Subsequently, on March 25, 2024, the Insured obtained an itemized estimate of damages totaling $159,589.24—an amount that more accurately reflects the true scope and nature of the loss. In further support of the claim, the Insured executed a Sworn Statement in Proof of Loss on May 10, 2024, attesting to the extent of the damages sustained. Despite being provided with all relevant documentation, Lloyd’s failed to meaningfully consider the Insured’s submission in its adjustment of the claim. This matter constitutes an instance wherein Lloyd’s has persistently and unjustifiably denied claims without undertaking reasonable investigations based upon the available information, thereby violating Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) of the Florida Statutes. On October 21, 2024, due to Lloyd’s failure to adhere to adequate standards for investigating and adjusting claims, the Insured was compelled to retain legal representation to assist in presenting its claim to Lloyd’s. Upon receipt of the Insured’s legal representative’s letter of representation, Lloyd’s, through its desk adjuster Lynn Rothman, merely resubmitted its initial estimate and a copy of the Policy. However, Lloyd’s failed to provide a correspondence articulating the basis for its coverage determination or explaining its refusal to consider the Insured’s own efforts to adjust the loss, despite such consideration not being the Insured’s responsibility. This omission has left the Insured without the necessary resources to recover from the loss. The burden imposed upon the Insured has been substantial. As a result of the damage to the Insured Property stemming from the loss on March 9, 2024, the Insured was unable to rent the property until repairs were completed at the end of April, incurring costs exceeding $75,000.00 to effectuate said repairs. Notwithstanding these developments, Lloyd’s has continued to refrain from fairly adjusting the claim and has not made a good faith effort to settle the claim when, under all circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly, honestly, and with due regard for the Insured’s interests, thereby violating Section 624.155(1)(b)(1) of the Florida Statutes In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. Lloyd’s has breached the public’s trust by its adjustment of the Insured’s claim of loss. Lloyd’s has failed to create and implement adequate guidelines for the proper investigation and evaluation of claims, claims handling, and for training and supervision of employees, resulting in statutory violations as set forth above. Lloyd’s has failed and/or refused to thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigate and evaluate the Insured’s claim for damages. Lloyd’s has failed to promptly settle the Insured’s claim when the obligation to settle the insurance claim had become reasonably clear. To date, notwithstanding the Insured’s pleas otherwise, Lloyd’s has continued to refuse to acknowledge its obligation to conduct a proper investigation. Moreover, Lloyd’s has not attempted in good faith to settle the Insured’s claim 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 their interests. Lloyd’s has done everything possible to delay and/or deny the claim. Furthermore, Lloyd’s is required to properly investigate and adjust claims and cannot place that burden upon the insureds. This was made clear by the appellate court and the Florida Supreme Court in Allstate Indemnity Co. v. Ruiz, 899 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 2005)(“The Legislature has clearly chosen to impose on the insurance companies a duty to use good faith and fair dealing in processing and litigating the claims of their insureds…”). Lloyd’s was timely put on notice of the Insured’s loss and claim for damages. The Insured has complied with all of Lloyd’s’ requests to date and the carrier has still failed to treat this claim with good-faith. This intentional delay with the claim has led to direct prejudice of the Insured, who continues to be held hostage unless/until Lloyd’s engages in good faith claims handling. To date, Lloyd’s has still refused to fully pay the amount owed under the Policy. To make matters worse, the Insured has incurred incredible costs and efforts to adjust their own loss, with detailed and substantiated damages presented to Lloyd’s in the form of a repair estimate evidencing $159,589.24 in Replacement Cost Valuation. Lloyd’s’ stubborn and/or negligent refusal to fully indemnify the Insured for the covered damages has resulted in a confluence of consequential damages including, but not limited to, excess damages stemming from Lloyd’s’ maladroit adjustment of the claim, the unaffordability of the Insured Property given the loss of utility and the indefinite delay to address the ongoing dispute, additional costs and expenses to adjust its own loss that include retaining a public adjuster and an attorney, among many other otherwise unnecessary consequences but for the negligence and nefarious business practices of Lloyd’s. It is clear that Lloyd’s is not treating the Insured with good faith claims conduct; failing to pay a claim clearly owed; not adjusting the claim and evaluating the loss properly, promptly and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to the Insured; and ignoring the Insured’s pleas for assistance; failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims by its adjusters and placing Lloyd’s’ interests before the Insured’s interests; refusing to pay the full amount owed to the Insured despite the fact that Lloyd’s has been on notice of the damages and looking for ways to delay and/or deny full recovery to the Insured, when a reasonable carrier in a similar position would have tendered a full payment in accordance with both the policy language and statutory requirements. Lloyd’s’ actions are in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g), and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h), Florida Statutes. All of the aforementioned are part of what appears to be an ongoing pattern and practice of behavior by Lloyd’s that demonstrates a wanton and reckless disregard for insured’s rights and a pattern and practice of bad faith claims practices to its insureds across the state of Florida. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, Lloyd’s must: (1) Create and implement adequate guidelines for the proper investigation and evaluation of these type of claims and for the training and supervision of employees, which will avoid future statutory violations as set forth above, and prevent this from occurring in the future; (2) Lloyd’s must create and implement adequate guidelines for the proper investigation and evaluation of these type of claims and for the training and supervision of employees with regard to these type of claims to ensure that the claims handling procedure with regard to these types of losses are adequate to prevent other insureds from being treated unfairly and wrongfully; (3) Lloyd’s must pay the Insured $159,589.24 for all of the damages sustained as a result of the loss, less the applicable deductible, limitations, plus all contractual damages owed, attorney’s fees, costs and interest, under Sections 57.041 and 627.70131(5)(a) Florida Statutes; and (4) Lloyd’s must act fairly and honestly towards its Insured and with due regard for their interests in attempting to settle its Insured’s claim.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
svanschoyck@berklawfirm.com 08-07-2025 VIA E-MAIL: AOLADIPO@MSO.LAW Abidemi A. Oladipo, Esq. Mubarak, Sherif & Oladipo, PLLC 12226 N. 56th Street Tampa, Florida 33617 Re: Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations Insurers: Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London Subscribing to Policy No. LSP4818000D Insured: Hondo Creek Real Estate Operations, LLC Policy No.: LSP4818000D Date of Loss: March 9, 2024 Claim No.: 1276167 DFS Notice No.: 826213 Accepted by DFS: June 10, 2025 Dear Mr. Oladipo: We represent Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London Subscribing to Policy Number LSP4818000D (“Underwriters”), the condominium property insurers for Hondo Creek Real Estate Operations, LLC (the “Insured”), under Policy Number LSP4818000D, with effective dates of May 6, 2023 to May 6, 2024 (the “Policy”). We write on Underwriters’ behalf in response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (the “Notice”) submitted to the Department of Financial Services, Division of Consumer Services (the “Department”) on behalf of the Insured. The Notice bears filing number 826213, with an acceptance date of June 10, 2025. In the Notice, filed on behalf of the Insured, it is alleged that Underwriters violated various Florida Statutes with regard to the Insured’s claim under the Policy for damages from an alleged backed up sewer and broken pipe causing water damage to the insured property located at 3880 E. County Highway 30A, Unit 104, Santa Rosa Beach, Florida 32459 (the “Property”), which reportedly occurred on March 9, 2024. The Notice generally alleges that the “Reasons for Notice” are “claim denial, claim delay, unsatisfactory settlement offer, and unfair trade practice.” Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, sets forth the requirement that the Notice shall state with specificity all of the following: (1) the statutory provision allegedly violated, including the specific language of the statute; (2) the facts and circumstances that give rise to a violation of those statutes referenced in the civil remedy notice; (3) the name of any individual involved in the alleged violation; (4) the specific policy language that is relevant to the alleged violation, and (5) a statement that the notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by Florid a law. Florida courts have interpreted section 624.155(3)(b) to require that a civil remedy notice be specific enough to provide insurer notice of wrongdoing so an insurer can timely cure the alleged violations within sixty days. See, e.g., Heritage Corp. of S. Fla. v. Nat. Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 580 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1298-99 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (insured did not state with specificity the facts giving rise to the specific statutory violation so as to put insurer on notice of wrongful acts being alleged); Nowak v. Lexington Ins. Co., 464 F. Supp. 2d 1248, 1251-52 (S.D. Fla. 2006) (holding that the insured could not proceed with a cause of action based upon an alleged violation of section 626.9541 when that statute was not specifically listed in the CRN); Valenti v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., No. 8:04-CV-1615-T-30TGW, 2006 WL 1627276, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 6, 2006) (disallowing certain actions for bad faith that were not specific enough to put insurer on notice of alleged violations). As an initial matter, Underwriters deny that they or any of their representatives engaged in any prohibited conduct or violated any of the statutes referenced in the Notice with respect to the Insured’s claim. Underwriters acted in good faith, without delay, and with due regard for the Insured’s interests at all times during the investigation, handling, and adjustment of the claim. Here, the Notice is vague and deficient in describing the facts and circumstances giving rise to Underwriters alleged statutory violations. As an initial matter, we note that despite the matter being a condominium loss, the Notice refers to the type of insurance as “commercial property & casualty,” which is incorrect. Moreover, the Notice broadly alleges that the actions taken by Underwriters in the handling and adjustment of the Insured’s claim constitute violations of Florida law without providing any of the factual circumstances giving rise to this alleged violation. For instance, the Notice alleges that Underwriters did not attempt in good faith to settle the claim and failed to adopt or implement proper standards for investigation of the claim; however, at no point in the allegations, does the Insured point to any facts to dispute Underwriters’ coverage determination. Further, the Notice alleges that Underwriters violated Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), Florida Statutes, by allegedly misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. However, the Notice simply alleges, without supporting facts, that Underwriters misrepresented “facts or insurance policy provisions related to the coverage at issue.” At no point, does the Notice state what the alleged misrepresentations actually are with regard to Underwriters’ conduct or coverage position. The Notice further alleges that Underwriters denied the claim without conducting a reasonable investigation; however, Underwriters retained an independent adjuster to assist in the claim investigation, and properly adjusted the claim. Moreover, the Notice is vague and deficient as it fails to consider all relevant policy language. As explained in the coverage determination letter, coverage was limited to $5,000 due to the water sewer backup limit as identified in the Water Back Up and Sump Discharge or Overflow Endorsement. The Insured’s contention that Underwriters failed to provide a reasonable explanation of the adjustment is inaccurate as the payment letter identified the previously mentioned endorsement as limiting coverage. Further, the Notice is also deficient because it does not state with specificity what Underwriters must do to “cure” the violations alleged in it as required by Florida law. Florida courts have long held that the purpose of a civil remedy notice is to provide the insurer with an opportunity to settle a claim with the insured within a sixty-day period in order to avoid unnecessary bad faith litigation. Lane v. Westfield Ins. Co., 862 So. 2d 774, 779 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). However, the civil remedy notice must be specific enough to provide insurers notice of the wrongdoing so the insurer can cure the same within sixty days. Id. The Notice states that Underwriters can “cure” the alleged violations by creating new training guidelines for its adjusters, pay the Insured $159,589.24 for damages, less the applicable deductible, and act more fairly to their insureds when adjusting claims. Underwriters do not agree that they require new training guidelines or that they have not acted fairly the Insured. Further, Underwriters disagree that the Insured is entitled under the Policy to all of the damages claimed by the Insured. The Notice leaves Underwriters to speculate as to what amount the Insured is seeking and what actions would actually “cure” the alleged violations and wrongful conduct. Thus, because the Notice is, at best, vague and unspecific, and does not provide Underwriters with a meaningful opportunity to “cure,” the Notice is legally deficient. On or about March 21, 2024, Underwriters’ representatives received notice of the Insured’s loss and claim for damage, which was reported as a pipe under the condominium unit broke causing dirty water to flush through the plumbing system. Upon receipt of the claim, Underwriters appointed Davies as the third-party administrator and the independent adjusting firm to investigate the Insured’s claim. The Insured’s public adjuster of Noble Public Adjusting Group inspected the Property on March 21, 2024. Thereafter, the independent adjuster inspected the Property on April 9, 2024. The independent adjuster observed water damage across various rooms at the Property and prepared an estimate totaling $59,750.28 RCV/$52,496.85 ACV, but noted a net claim of $5,000 due to the Water Back Up and Sump Discharge or Overflow Endorsement and documentation from the plumber that the cause of the damage was a blockage and overflow of a toilet. As a result of Underwriters’ investigation, on July 11, 2024, Davies, on behalf of Underwriters issued a coverage determination letter to the Insured, advising of the undisputed payment of $5,000 for the Insured’s loss, based on the independent adjuster’s investigation and $5,000 water sewer backup limit. It was later reported that the payment was not received, and the letter and payment were re-issued on September 26, 2024, advising of the same policy language and reserving all rights. Underwriters’ representatives received the Insured’s counsel’s letter of representation on October 21, 2024. Based on the foregoing, the Insured has not alleged in the Notice any facts that would support a determination that Underwriters have engaged in any prohibited conduct or violated the statutes referenced in the Notice and is therefore unable to substantiate any payment to the Insured for damages as a result of the loss and claim. At all times, Underwriters acted with honesty and candor and with due regard for the Insured’s interests. Underwriters promptly and thoroughly investigated all aspects of the Insured’s claim and acted in good faith and with due regard for the Insured’s interests in its investigation, evaluation, handling, and adjustment of the claim. Underwriters categorically deny that they or any of their representatives engaged in any prohibited conduct or violated the statutes referenced in the Notice. However, in the utmost good fait and in an effort to amicably resolve this matter, Underwriters have contacted the Insured’s counsel, and scheduled mediation, and will continue to work towards a resolution of this matter. Finally, please be advised that Underwriters do not waive, but rather expressly reserve the right to raise any and all available objections and defenses to this matter. Furthermore, neither this letter, nor any action taken by, or on behalf of Underwriters in connection with the Insured’s claim should be construed as a waiver of any rights, privileges, or defenses available under the Policy or Florida law. To the contrary, Underwriters expressly reserve all rights, privileges, and defenses available to them under the subject Policy or Florida law. Should you have any questions regarding this matter or need anything further, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Kind regards, /s/ Sarah B. Van Schoyck Sarah B. Van Schoyck VIA Electronic Filing Florida Department of Financial Services Bureau of Consumer Assistance Civil Remedy Section - Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0322
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