Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     827876
Filing Accepted:  6/20/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
THE CINCINNATI SPECIALTY UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY   First Name  
Street Address * 6200 S. GILMORE ROAD
City, State Zip * FAIRFIELD, OH 45014
Email Address * GLENNY@DGHLEGAL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   FORD DRYWALL & STUCCO, INC.   First Name  
Policy # * CSU0059356 Claim #* 4313865
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* GLENNY First Name * DAVID Initial A
Street Address* 1333 SE 25TH LOOP SUITE 101, SUITE 101
City, State Zip* OCALA , FL 34471
Email Address * GLENNY@DGHLEGAL.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   CINCINNATI SPECIALTY UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY (THE)
NAIC Company Code 13037
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* UNKNOWN
Type of Insurance * Commercial Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
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.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
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.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM (CG 00 01 04 13), Section I – Coverages, Coverage A – Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability, 1a. Section V – Definitions, 13, 16, 17, 18, 21 and 22. Wrap-Up Covered Project Coverage Extension (MEGL 1893 06 17).
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

The Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters Insurance Company (Cincinnati) issued commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policies to Ford Drywall and Stucco, Inc. (Ford), which was a subcontractor to Taub Entities – Bayshore, LLC (Taub) and performed work at a project known as The Sanctuary at Alexandria Place Condominium (Association), located at 2619 Bayshore Boulevard, Tampa, Florida 33629 (Project). The Association filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida, case no. 22-CA-010137 (Lawsuit). Evanston Insurance Company (Evanston) issued policy no. MKLV2PBC000228 (Policy) that was in effect from April 3, 2019 to April 3, 2021. The Policy provided Commercial General Liability Coverage for Taub and enrolled subcontractors, including Ford, as the Policy was an Owner Controlled Insurance Program (OCIP) administered by Paladin Risk Management (Paladin). Ford was an enrolled subcontractor and therefore qualified as an “Eligible Party” under the OCIP and Policy. The limits of coverage under the Policy, which by endorsement provided that its coverage would be primary and noncontributory to other coverage available to an Eligible Party, were $2 million each occurrence/$2 million general aggregate/$2 million products-completed operations aggregate. In addition to the primary CGL coverage afforded by the Policy, Evanston also provided the “First Excess Insurance” under the OCIP, with limits of $5 million each occurrence/$5 million general aggregate. The OCIP was a “Wrap Up Policy” for the Project and Ford met all criteria to qualify as an insured participant under the OCIP. Despite multiple requests to Paladin and Evanston through Markel International (Markel), its authorized claims administrator, Ford has not been provided a defense to the Lawsuit by Evanston. To date and notwithstanding multiple written requests to Evanston/Markel, Evanston has failed to accept the tender of Ford’s defense and has thereby caused damage to Ford and Cincinnati for having to discharge a duty and responsibility that was and continues to be owed by Evanston under the Policy and OCIP. Neither has Evanston disclosed any coverage position or reason why the tenders of Ford’s defense have not been accepted. The requests by Ford and Cincinnati for defense are justified under the terms and conditions of the Policy, and Evanston has clearly breached its duty to defend, which under Florida law is determined solely by the allegations of the Lawsuit. See Zurich American Insurance Company v. Southern-Owners Insurance Company, 314 F. Supp. 3d 1284, 1299 (M.D. Fla. 2018); Jones v. Florida Insurance Guaranty Association, Inc., 908 So. 2d 435, 443 (Fla. 2005); Category 5 Management Group, LLC v. Companion Property & Casualty Insurance Company, 76 So. 3d 20, 23 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Evanston appears to be employing a misguided strategy of simply ignoring Ford’s tender of its defense in an effort to avoid paying the defense costs that have had to be incurred and paid by Ford and Cincinnati. Evanston’s failure to defend and its persistent refusal to respond to multiple requests for defense has prejudiced and damaged Ford and Cincinnati. Due to Evanston’s unreasonable claims handling practices, Ford and Cincinnati have been and will be forced to incur significant defense costs in the Lawsuit for which Evanston is responsible. The attorney fees and costs that Ford and Cincinnati have incurred have unjustly burdened Ford and Cincinnati. Evanston must exercise its duty of good faith to Ford as an Eligible Party and insured under the Policy, with the “same degree of care and diligence as a person of ordinary care and prudence should exercise in the management of its own business.” Farinas v. Florida Farm Bureau General Insurance Company, 850 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Given the facts outlined above, Evanston has failed or otherwise not attempted to meet the standard for good faith in this matter. Cincinnati is allowing Evanston a last opportunity to deal with Ford in good faith and can cure the violations described by this notice by acknowledging a primary and noncontributory duty to defend Ford in the Lawsuit, reimbursing Cincinnati for its defense costs and fees and to act reasonably and in good faith in an effort to settle any and all claims asserted or that could have been asserted against Ford in the Lawsuit. The notice is filed to perfect the rights of Cincinnati to pursue the remedies permitted under Fla. Stat. § 624.155.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
irwin@bicecolelaw.com 06-23-2025 The notice filed under #827876 was submitted in error and should be disregarded. The affected insurer intended to be identified by filing #827876 is Evanston Insurance Company. A corrected notice has been filed under #828154 and is incorporated herein by reference.
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