Civil Remedy Filing

Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations

Filing Number: 827441

Filing Accepted: 6/18/2025

Print Filing

Complainant

Last/Business Name *

ANDERSON PIER, INC.

First Name

Street Address *

5550 N. LAGOON DRIVE

City, State Zip *

PANAMA CITY BEACH, FL 32408

Email Address *

PANAMACITYJOEREALTOR@GMAIL.COM

Complainant Type: *

Insured

Last/Business Name*		ANDERSON PIER, INC.		First Name
Policy # *		B02429BA2305755		Claim #*		19914

Attorney

Attorney is Applicable

Last Name*	PETTINATO First Name * DAVID Initial J
Street Address*		1000 W. CASS STREET
City, State Zip*		TAMPA , FLORIDA 33606
Email Address *		DPETTINATO@OLDERLUNDYLAW.COM, DJP-PARALEGALS@OLDER

Violation

Insurer Type *		Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer

Insurer Name
Insurer Name*		UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, LONDON
Insurer Name*
Street Address*
City, State Zip*		,
NAIC Company Code

Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* MIKE MEHR, DAVID J. BAKER, DOUG MAY, AND ALL OTHER ADJUSTERS, SUPERVISORS, MANAGEMENT AND INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH OR RETAINED BY CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S OF LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO. B02429BA2305755 INVOLVED IN THE CLAIM.
Type of Insurance * Commercial Property & Casualty

Reason for Notice *

	Claim Denial
	Claim Delay
	Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
	Unfair Trade Practice
	Other : Failure to properly investigate claim and with due regard to Insured’s interest
	Other : Failure to acknowledge and act promptly to communications regarding claim

* 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)(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)(f)		Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of the basis in the insurance policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement.
	626.9541(1)(i)(4)		Failing to pay undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed under first-party property insurance policies within 60 days after an insurer receives notice of a residential property insurance claim, determines the amounts of partial or full benefits, and agrees to coverage, unless payment of the undisputed benefits is prevented by factors beyond the control of the insurer as defined in s. 627.70131(5).

* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

ADD’L STATUTES VIOLATED §627.70131(1)(a) §627.70131(7)(a) POLICY LANGUAGE The Insured may not be in possession of a complete copy the applicable policy of insurance, however, the specific policy language relevant to the violations outlined below is contained within Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London subscribing to Policy No. B02429BA2305755’s Commercial policy, Policy No. B02429BA2305755, issued to the Insured including, but is not limited to, the following: Building provisions (CP 00 10 04 02) - Building 1 - Building 2 - Building 3 Business Personal Property provisions (CP 00 10 04 02 / CP 00 30 04 02) Additional Coverages provisions (CP 10 30 09 17 / CP 00 10 04 02) - Debris Removal - Preservation of Property - Increased Cost of Construction - “Fungus”, Wet Rot, Dry Rot And Bacteria - Water Damage, Other Liquids, Power Or Molten Material Damage - Glass The Declarations Page Loss Payment or Loss Settlement provisions (CP 00 10 04 02) Duties in Event of Loss Policy provisions (CP 00 10 04 02) The insurance policy's definition sections (CP 10 30 09 17 / CP 00 10 04 02) The insurance policy's exclusion of coverage provisions (CP 10 30 09 17 / CP 00 10 04 02) Please advise if there are other applicable policy provisions that are not cited above but would provide coverage to the Insured for the January 9, 2024, tornado / wind loss.

* 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. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S OF LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO. B02429BA2305755 (“UNDERWRITERS”) has breached this duty by its failure or refusal to acknowledge its Insured’s claim of loss. UNDERWRITERS has failed to create and implement adequate guidelines for proper investigation to evaluate claims handling and for training and supervision of employees resulting in statutory violations as set forth above. UNDERWRITERS has failed and/or refused to thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigate and evaluate the Insured’s insurance claim for damages. To date, notwithstanding the Insured’s pleas, UNDERWRITERS has continued to refuse to acknowledge its obligation to acknowledge and pay the full amount of its Insured’s claim. This complaint is made on behalf of the Insured, Anderson Pier, Inc. (“ANDERSON PIER”). Further, this complaint is a statement that notice is hereby given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized and pursuant to Florida Statute §624.155. In consideration of the premium paid to it by ANDERSON PIER, UNDERWRITERS issued an Commercial policy, Policy No. B02429BA2305755 (hereinafter referred to as “the Policy”), to ANDERSON PIER wherein the insurance policy provided coverage for all losses, including tornado / wind, except those losses which were expressly excluded. The policy was in full force and effect at the time the damage occurred as a result of tornado / wind, and the ensuing damages as a direct result thereof, to the insured premises located at 5550 N. Lagoon Drive, Panama City Beach, FL 32408, on or about January 9, 2024. ANDERSON PIER sustained damages to the exterior and interior of the property, including but not limited to, the windows and multiple roof systems. ANDERSON PIER timely notified UNDERWRITERS of the damages and opened a claim pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Policy. In response, UNDERWRITERS assigned the claim to a third-party claims administrator firm, Mills Mehr & Associates, to adjust and investigate the loss, as well as a field adjuster to inspect the damages. UNDERWRITERS’S representative visited the insured property and performed a cursory and inadequate investigation of the damaged property. UNDERWRITERS through TPA Mills Mehr & Associates, used a system of cost cutting measures and refused to address serious damages pointed out by the insureds representatives that were storm related. Concerned that UNDERWRITERS had no intention to fairly investigate and adjust its claim, ANDERSON PIER sought to consult the services of an insurance claim professional, Jeffrey Pellet from Professional Insurance Estimating & Appraisal, LLC. (PIEA), to assist in submitting its claim to UNDERWRITERS which would adequately and fairly detail all the damages sustained as a result of the loss. ANDERSONS PIER has no contract at present with Professional Insurance Estimating and Appraisal. LLC and only sought consultation of the damages. ANDERSON PIER named Jeffrey Pellet of PIEA to act as their “Appraiser of record”. In contrast to UNDERWRITERS’ damage estimate, ANDERSON PIER’S estimate from PIEA, totaled a dwelling loss of $462,240.10 RCV. This estimate better reflects the full extent of damages sustained to the insured property, as detailed above. UNDERWRITERS retained experts from its preferred vendor list, Mr. David J. Baker from Keystone Experts and Engineers, LLC. (Keystone), instead of retaining objective experts to provide it with thorough and completely objective opinions and conclusions. UNDERWRITERS retained “hired gun” experts to provide it with an outcome-oriented investigation and opinions to deny the claim, and/or reduce the amount of the claim pay out. This is unfair claims handling practices. Keystone failed to identify what type of damages there was to the building but instead chose to “not declare” or identify what type of damages were present and claimed by the insured. On March 6, 2024, UNDERWRITERS submitted an inspection findings letter to ANDERSON PIER, stating that Keystone had discovered scratched panels to the Building 1 & 3 roof to be “due to wind-borne debris strikes”, “no storm-created openings in the roof or storm damage to Building 2”. Following this findings letter, ANDERSON PIER requested UNDERWRITERS reevaluate the notated damages to its property. On March 27, 2024, UNDERWRITERS again submitted a similar findings letter to ANDERSON PIER, finding “no storm-created openings in the roof or storm damage” and that as there were repairs made prior to the inspection, “Keystone could not confirm nor deny if the repairs were related to the passage of the storm vent of January 9, 2024.” Again, UNDERWRITERS was undervaluing the extent of damages sustained to the property, but was now changing its evaluation regarding prior repairs, this time to its own advantage. Unable to wait any longer for UNDERWRITERS to tender owed insurance benefits for the subject loss, ANDERSON PIER retained Dog Island Industries, LLC., to perform temporary repairs to the insured property, in an effort to prevent additional damages. On or about June 21, 2024, UNDERWRITERS provided ANDERSON PIER with another inspection report, concluding that “substantial roof leaks affecting at least 25% of the [roof] surface” were found but because they were “in close proximity to areas of the roof [were] obviously patched and repaired in the past”. With regards to ANDERSON PIER’S property insurance claim, UNDERWRITERS has misrepresented the true extent of damages sustained to the property, multiple times. As a result, UNDERWRITERS has delayed ANDERSON PIER’S ability to restore the property back to pre-loss conditions. On February 13, 2025, ANDERSON PIER submitted an Appraisal Demand letter to UNDERWRITERS. To date, ANDERSON PIER has not received any Appraisal Demand response from UNDERWRITERS. UNDERWRITERS responded to the Demand for Appraisal and applied a “Reservation of Rights”, declaring it was still investigating the matter. To date, ANDERSON PIER has not received any owed insurance benefits from UNDERWRITERS. To date, ANDERSON PIER has not received any settlement offers from UNDERWRITERS. To date, UNDERWRITERS has failed to tender any supplemental insurance benefits. UNDERWRITERS has admitted that ANDERSON PIER sustained covered damages as a result of the tornado / wind loss that occurred on or about January 9, 2024 but has denied tendering all owed insurance benefits to ANDERSON PIER. Pursuant to Florida Statute §626.9541(1)(i)(4), UNDERWRITERS is required to pay undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed under first-party property insurance policies within 90 days after UNDERWRITERS received notice of the residential property insurance claim, determine the amounts of partial or full benefits, and agree to coverage, unless payment of the undisputed benefits is prevented by factors beyond the control of the insurer as defined in s. 627.70131(5). As UNDERWRITERS has failed to do so, UNDERWRITERS has wrongfully denied coverage. Since the beginning of the claim, UNDERWRITERS has engaged in a pattern of delay, denial, and reckless disregard for ANDERSON PIER’S rights. The actions of UNDERWRITERS listed herein have been continuing in nature and given the totality of the circumstances, which includes UNDERWRITERS’S adjustment, actions and/or omissions post the filing of this CRN. ANDERSON PIER contends that given the past experience in this matter with UNDERWRITERS, it is reasonably foreseeable that UNDERWRITERS’S current actions will extend to its entire conduct in the handing of its claim, including the acts or omissions of UNDERWRITERS and/or its representatives, until the final resolution of its claim. As such, ANDERSON PIER contends adequate notice has been given should UNDERWRITERS’S actions and violations listed herein continue after the expiration of this notice. UNDERWRITERS has failed and/or refused to settle the claim when it could and should have done so had it acted fairly and honestly towards ANDERSON PIER, and has failed to take into account the information and evidence provided that contradict its decisions. Even upon receipt of additional and supporting evidence to the contrary, UNDERWRITERS has continued to stand by its claim denials. As such, ANDERSON PIER does not anticipate UNDERWRITERS will rescind its denial of its claim. UNDERWRITERS’S conduct has been reckless and unfair to ANDERSON PIER, and has caused and continues to cause additional damages throughout the property. This is evidenced by the delay in paying the claim and the failure of UNDERWRITERS to evaluate the claim in total. To date, UNDERWRITERS has failed and/or refused to provide ANDERSON PIER with all the insurance benefits due and owing and has not tendered the full amount needed to repair the Property despite knowing that ANDERSON PIER has sustained covered damages to its insured property. As UNDERWRITERS must admit, it is implied within every insurance policy a duty of good faith and fair dealings. In an insurance contract, each party is prevented from interfering with the other’s right to benefit from the contract. The obligations of good faith and fair dealings encompass qualities of decency and humanity inherent in its responsibilities as a fiduciary. UNDERWRITERS is bound to conduct itself with the utmost good faith for the benefit of ANDERSON PIER. However, UNDERWRITERS has failed to comply with the obligations in connection with this claim and has never looked at the claim or the contract for insurance with good faith and fair dealing. Instead, UNDERWRITERS has looked for ways not to pay the claim in full, or at all, and these actions have been to the detriment of ANDERSON PIER. The adjusters assigned to this claim have a duty to adjust and treat all claims equally. Since the beginning of this claim the representatives on behalf of UNDERWRITERS have approached this investigation in a manner prejudicial to ANDERSON PIER. UNDERWRITERS is using either untrained or improperly trained adjusters in connection with this claim. UNDERWRITERS should have been adjusting the loss with ANDERSON PIER but instead, it was looking for ways not to pay the claim at all, or pay the claim in full. If UNDERWRITERS handles all the claims in the manner in which ANDERSON PIER’S claim was adjusted, then it is improperly handling all claims. UNDERWRITERS has refused and/or failed to comply with The Policy’s cooperation and/or “Loss Payment” provision. Under The Policy, UNDERWRITERS was to timely tender undisputed insurance benefits to ANDERSON PIER. UNDERWRITERS has failed and/or refused to timely tender owed insurance benefits, undisputed or otherwise. This is a breach of The Policy. UNDERWRITERS has refused and/or failed to cooperate and/or “Adjust the Loss” by cooperating with ANDERSON PIER during the claims adjustment process in compliance with The Policy’s “Loss Payment” provision. This is a breach of The Policy. The concept of insurance is that insurance is the insurer’s granting of timely and prompt indemnity or security against a contingent loss. Florida Statute §624.02 defines “insurance” as a contract whereby one undertakes to indemnify another or pay or allow specified amount or a determinable benefit upon determinable contingencies. Inherent is the fact that payment must be made timely and promptly so that ANDERSON PIER may mitigate its damages and to put it back into the position it was in prior to the loss as quickly as possible. UNDERWRITERS has breached this duty. UNDERWRITERS has refused and/or failed to tender all insurance proceeds to ANDERSON PIER upon demand. UNDERWRITERS’S refusal and/or failure to settle the insurance claim when under all circumstances it could have and should have done so had it acted fairly and honestly towards ANDERSON PIER is wrongful conduct. Furthermore, ANDERSON PIER contends that UNDERWRITERS’S adjusters and/or representatives financially benefit by such wrongful conduct. It is clear that UNDERWRITERS’S adjusters have also failed to adhere to insurance industry rules and guidelines when adjusting a first party claim. It is also evident that UNDERWRITERS violated the Florida unfair claims practices, the adjuster’s ethical code of conduct, and acted irresponsibly in the handling of its insured’s claims. In this case, ANDERSON PIER paid a hefty premium for a service, the service is called claims adjusting (I encourage you to read the book titled, “The Claims Environment” written by James J. Markham, Kevin M. Quinley, and Layne S. Thompson-this book is taught in every first year AIC course). The claim professional must dispense his or her knowledge and skill for the benefit of society. The general public expects claims representatives to pay all legitimate claims promptly and fairly. The claim professional must harness all of his or her knowledge and expertise to accomplish the objectives of the claim function. He or she must also adhere to the highest degree of ethical conduct. In addition to interacting with other insurance personnel and service providers in a professional manner, the claims professional must deal with public’s and regulator’s expectations. Insurance Companies provide such a vital and necessary service to society that the selling and servicing of insurance is imbued with a public trust. James J. Markham, Kevin M. Quinley, Layne S. Thompson, “The Claims Environment”, Insurance Institute of America, 1st ed., 1993. Accordingly, UNDERWRITERS has a contractual and statutory obligation to investigate all possible bases which might support ANDERSON PIER’S claim and cannot deny a claim without thoroughly investigating the foundation for its denial or basis for withholding insurance benefits. UNDERWRITERS violated its obligations here. - UNDERWRITERS has a contractual and statutory obligation to make a perfunctory investigation, not ignoring evidence that would support ANDERSON PIER’S claim. UNDERWRITERS violated its obligations here. - UNDERWRITERS has a contractual and statutory obligation not to look the other way when confronted with facts revealing the possibility of coverage and resisting reasonable interpretations of its policy. UNDERWRITERS violated its obligations here. - UNDERWRITERS has a contractual and statutory obligation not to deny the claim based on standards known to be impermissible or on an interpretation contrary to established law. UNDERWRITERS violated its obligations here. These actions and violations were either done intentionally or as the result of UNDERWRITERS’S failure to adopt and implement the proper standards of the investigation and adjustment of claims. Overall, UNDERWRITERS’S investigation of the claim was inadequate and contrary to its obligations under the insurance policy and Florida law. ANDERSON PIER has done everything legally requested by UNDERWRITERS to date. To cure the violations set forth in this Civil Remedy Notice, UNDERWRITERS must now agree to acknowledge its duties and obligations under the law in adjusting its insured’s claim, and tender rightfully owed insurance benefits to return ANDERSON PIER to its pre-loss condition. Further, to cure the violations set forth in this Civil Remedy Notice, ANDERSON PIER hereby requests that UNDERWRITERS tender at this time, or prior to the expiration of the statutory cure period, the amount of ANDERSON PIER’S damage estimate and demand which accurately reflects the true nature and extent of ANDERSON PIER’S damages. Therefore, UNDERWRITERS should tender $462,240.10 (less any prior payments, depreciation, excess policy limits, and/or deductible) in insurance benefits at this time. Although ANDERSON PIER has made a demand for payment in the amount of $462,240.10 (less any prior payments, depreciation, excess policy limits, and/or deductible) and has provided UNDERWRITERS with all the necessary documentation in support thereof, it is still willing to consider and to potentially accept any reasonable counter-offer made by UNDERWRITERS. Therefore, if UNDERWRITERS is not in agreement with ANDERSON PIER’S reasonable demand for payment of its rightfully owed insurance benefits being submitted at this time, ANDERSON PIER hereby requests that UNDERWRITERS now make a reasonable counter-offer before the expiration of the cure period. ANDERSON PIER still hopes that its claim can be resolved amicably. The concept of insurance is that insurance is the insurer’s granting of timely and prompt indemnity or security against a contingent loss. Florida Statute §624.02 defines “insurance” as a contract whereby one undertakes to indemnify another or pay or allow specified amount or a determinable benefit upon determinable contingencies. Inherent is the fact that payment must be made timely and promptly so that ANDERSON PIER may mitigate its damages and to put it back into the position it was in prior to loss as quickly as possible. UNDERWRITERS breached this duty. This notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized and pursuant to Florida Statute §624.155, including any and all bad faith/extra contractual, should UNDERWRITERS fail to cure the violations set forth in this Civil Remedy Notice within the given cure period. While no specific “cure amount” is required for this Civil Remedy Notice to be valid, ANDERSON PIER will consider the allegations contained herein “cured” if UNDERWRITERS, without any requirement for a release: (1) Immediately tenders the amount of ANDERSON PIER damage estimate in the amount of $462,240.10 (less any prior payments, depreciation, excess policy limits, and/or deductible), which accurately reflects the true nature and extent of the damages to the Dwelling / Other Structures; (2) Agrees to reimburse ANDERSON PIER for its expenses incurred by having to consult a damage appraiser to present its claim; and (3) Immediately tenders the amount of statutory interest due and owing to ANDERSON PIER pursuant to Florida Statute §627.70131(5)(a). (4) Immediately provides ANDERSON PIER with the documentation UNDERWRITERS has used and/or continues to contend, supports the claim determination made by UNDERWRITERS in the adjustment of ANDERSON PIER’S claim. Specifically, UNDERWRITERS must provide ANDERSON PIER with its claim estimate(s), supporting photographs and/or videos, as well as any and all reports of any expert(s) or other individuals retained on behalf of UNDERWRITERS upon which UNDERWRITERS has relied on in reaching and/or further supporting its coverage determination in ANDERSON PIER’S claim. ANDERSON PIER continues to remain open to a fair and reasonable settlement offer from UNDERWRITERS in an effort to avoid additional delay, costs and expenses, and hereby request the same prior to the expiration of the statutory “cure” period. ANDERSON PIER has provided UNDERWRITERS with all necessary estimates, documentation, etc. in support of the claim. UNDERWRITERS must act fairly and honestly in its response to ANDERSON PIER’S request for a prompt, fair and reasonable settlement offer and resolution of the claim.

Comments

User Id		Date Added		Comment
svanschoyck@berklawfirm.com		08-15-2025		VIA E-MAIL: DPETTINATO@OLDERLUNDYLAW.COM David J. Pettinato, Esq. Older Lundy Koch & Martino 1000 W. Cass Street Tampa, Florida 33606 Re: Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations Insurers: Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London Subscribing to Policy No. B02429BA2305755 Insured: Anderson’s Pier, Inc. Policy No.: B0429BA2305755 Date of Loss: January 9, 2024 Claim No.: 10.73340.40.PD DFS Notice No.: 827441 Accepted by DFS: June 18, 2025 Dear Mr. Pettinato: We represent Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London Subscribing to Policy Number B0429BA2305755 (“Underwriters”), the commercial property insurers for Anderson’s Pier, Inc. (the “Insured”), under Policy Number B0429BA2305755, with effective dates of July 1, 2023 to July 1, 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 827441 with an acceptance date of June 18, 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 alleged damages from a tornado at the property located at 5550 N. Lagoon Dr, Panama City, Florida 32408 (the “Property”), which reportedly occurred on January 9, 2024. The Notice generally alleges that the “Reasons for Notice” are “claim denial,” “claim delay,” “unsatisfactory settlement offer,” “unfair trade practice,” “failure to properly investigate claim and with due regard to Insured’s interest,” and “failure to acknowledge and act promptly to communications regarding claim.” 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; and (4) the specific policy language that is relevant to the alleged violation. 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 the alleged statutory violations. As an initial matter, we note that the Notice states Underwriters’ have denied coverage; however, the claim investigation is ongoing and a final coverage determination has not been made at this time. The coverage determination is pending the cooperation of the Insured’s representative. 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 support these allegations. 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 also alleges that Underwriters failed to timely pay the benefits owed, but portions of the claim, specifically related to the Property’s HVAC, were not reported until December 2024, nearly a year after the claim was submitted and are still under investigation. Finally, the Notice alleges Underwriters denied the claim without conducting a reasonable investigation; however, Underwriters retained an independent adjuster and engineer to assist in the claim investigation, and aspects of the claim evaluation remain ongoing. 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 paying the Insured’s estimate for damages of $462,240.10, less any prior payments, depreciation, policy limits, or deductible, reimburse the Insured for expenses related to hiring an appraiser, pay statutory interest, and provide documentation related to the claim; however, this does not consider the significant coverage and scope issues regarding the Insured’s alleged damages or the prejudicial issues with the claim. Underwriters do not agree that the Insured is entitled under the Policy to all of the damages alleged in the estimate presented 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 January 19, 2024, Underwriters’ representatives received the first notice of loss regarding the alleged tornado damage at the Property on January 9, 2024. The loss was reported by the Insured’s representative as “we’ve had a very intense tornado touch down and come through our area causing catastrophic damages.” Underwriters retained Mills Mehr & Associates as the independent adjuster and third-party administrator. The independent adjuster inspected the Property on January 31, 2024. During the inspection, the independent adjuster observed evidence of high winds at the Property. The Insured’s roofing contractor also attended the initial inspection and claimed damage to the roof on all three buildings, along with minor interior damage and window damage to Building 2. As a result of the inspection, the independent adjuster recommended an engineer and requested information related to the Insured’s Hurricane Michael claim and repairs. On February 5, 2024, Mills Mehr & Associates issued a request for information letter to the Insured regarding the repairs completed to the roof of Building 2 after Hurricane Michael, and any repair documentation related to all buildings. The Insured also presented various mitigation invoices from Dog Island Industries, LLC, dated February, March and April 2024, totaling $4,800. As a result of the independent adjuster’s inspection, Underwriters retained Keystone Experts and Engineers, LLC (“Keystone”) to determine the cause of reported damage to the roofs and exterior elevations of the buildings at the Property and whether it was the result of wind, and also determine the cause and origin of reported interior damage. On February 24, 2024, Keystone inspected the Property, and prepared a report and later a supplemental report, which corrected the building numbering from the initial report, and concluded the following: Building 1: • Dents and scratches to the parapet caps along the north slope, affecting approximately 28 linear feet. The parapet caps should be removed and replaced. • Scratches to the factory coating of three standing seam metal panels along the north slope due to wind-borne debris strikes. The three damaged panels should be removed and replaced. Replacement of only three individual panels of the standing seam metal roof may not be feasible due to the installation procedure. If 25% or more of the damaged slope requires replacement, then per the Florida Building Code, the entire slope will need to be replaced. • One drain dome was fractured by wind-borne debris. The drain dome should be removed and replaced. • Three small punctures in the TPO roof covering from wind-borne debris. Due to the size of the punctures, and difficulty in identifying, additional punctures may be present. Keystone recommends the roof be moisture-mapped to identify any additional leaks. The punctures should be patched. • Other than the aforementioned small punctures, there was no further damage to the TPO roof membrane. Building 2: • Lifted and scratched parapet caps, affecting approximately 50 linear feet. The parapet caps should be removed and replaced. • Punctures to three metal panels on the interior side of the parapet wall. The panels should be removed and replaced. • Scratches to the factory coating of seven standing seam metal panels along the east slope due to wind-borne debris strikes. The seven damaged panels should be removed and replaced. Replacement of only 7 individual panels of the standing seam metal roof may not be feasible due to the installation procedure. If 25% or more of the damaged slope requires replacement, then per the Florida Building Code, the entire slope will need to be replaced. • Scratches to the factory coating of five standing seam metal panels along the north slope due to wind-borne debris strikes. The five damaged panels should be removed and replaced. Replacement of only 5 individual panels of the standing seam metal roof may not be feasible due to the installation procedure. If 25% or more of the damaged slope requires replacement, then per the Florida Building Code, the entire slope will need to be replaced. • Displaced standing seam panels over the cupola. The metal panel roof should be replaced. • One window along the west elevation in the banquet/event hall exhibited seal displacement. While the window was located along the side of the building with the least amount of damage, Keystone cannot rule out wind pressure as the cause. The window should be reglazed. • The suspected microbial growth along the lower left-hand corner of a window in the banquet/event hall was consistent with leaks in or around the window seal over the service life of the window. The window should be reglazed. • The efflorescence along the interior side of the spray foam insulation above the banquet/event hall was consistent with water intrusion through the metal roof covering and foam sealant. As there were no visible storm-created openings, besides the three small punctures, the intrusion was consistent with water migrating through pre-existing breaches. However, as mentioned above, Keystone recommends the roof be moisture-mapped to identify any leaks that could have been caused by tornado-related punctures. • The foam sealant on the roof appeared to be older than the recently replaced (2019) TPO roof of Building 1 indicating that the metal roof covering over building 2 was not replaced after hurricane Micheal. • The foam sealant over the roof was patched prior to inspection therefore, Keystone could not confirm nor deny if the repairs were related to the passage of the storm event of January 9, 2024. • The hatch was repaired prior to inspection, therefore Keystone could not confirm nor deny if the repairs were related to the passage of the storm event of January 9, 2024. Building 3: • There were no storm-created openings in the roof or storm damage to the building. Upon review of the Keystone report, the independent adjuster prepared an estimate in the amount of $99,462.09 RCV/$91,904.30 ACV, which is below the $103,126.00 deductible. Moreover, on May 1, 2024, Mills Mehr & Associates, on behalf of Underwriters, issued a Reservation of Rights letter regarding the Duties After Loss provision of the Policy and the exclusion for existing damage. On June 21, 2024, Indoor Environmental Management (“IEM”) released its report on its moisture mapping of the Property, conducted on behalf of Underwriters. IEM concluded that “the thermal imaging inspection of Roof A [Building 2] indicates substantial roof leaks affecting at least 25% of the surface. Most of the detected thermal anomalies are in close proximity to areas of the roof that have obviously been patched and repaired in the past. This is an indicator that the majority of the leaks are primarily due to the failure of previous patching work.” With regard to Roof B [Building 1], IEM “identified no thermal anomalies that would be consistent with a roof leak.” Thereafter, PIEA, LLC inspected the Property on behalf of the Insured on October 8, 2024. He prepared an estimate in the amount of $462,240.10 RCV. Further, the Insured, in December 2024, reported that the HVAC units were also damaged during the loss, approximately a year after the claim was submitted. Mills Mehr & Associates have since retained MKA International, Inc., to evaluate the HVAC portion of the claim and requested additional supporting documentation from the Insured’s representatives. Moreover, as Underwriters’ adjustment of the claim was continuing, the Insured’s representative allegedly demanded appraisal on February 13, 2025, but the demand was not received by Mills Mehr & Associates until March 17, 2025. Mills Mehr & Associates issued a letter in response to the appraisal demand on March 25, 2025 in which it states that the claim investigation is still underway given the late submission of the HVAC portion of the claim, and requested documentation regarding the same. 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 continue to act 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. Finally, please be advised that Underwriters do not waive, but rather expressly reserves 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

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