Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     827942
Filing Accepted:  6/20/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
TIMBER OAKS FAIRWAY VILLAS CONDO IV ASSN. INC.   First Name  
Street Address * 5901 US HIGHWAY 19, SUITE 7Q
City, State Zip * NEW PORT RICHEY, FL 34652
Email Address * PRESIDENT.FV4@GMAIL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   TIMBER OAKS FAIRWAY VILLAS CONDO IV ASSN. INC.   First Name  
Policy # * AMC-31712-05 Claim #* 4179479
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* HARRIS First Name * ASHLEY Initial
Street Address* 777 S HARBOUR ISLAND BLVD., SUITE 950
City, State Zip* TAMPA , FLORIDA 33602
Email Address * AHARRIS@MERLINLAWGROUP.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   AMERICAN COASTAL INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 12968
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* TAMELA HUGHEY, AIC
Type of Insurance * Commercial Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
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)(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)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

DECLARATIONS PAGE COMMERCIAL PACKAGE Named Insured: Timber Oaks Fairway Villas Condo IV Assn Inc DEDUCTIBLE Sinkhole Deductible: 3% Per Occurrence COVERAGES PROVIDED Insurance at the Described Premises Applies Only for Coverages for Which A Limit of Insurance is shown. Described Location Premises Loc No. Address Building 0001 8131 Braddock Circle, Port Richey, FL 34668 $508,171 0002 8141 Braddock Circle, Port Richey, FL 34668 $508,171 0003 8151 Braddock Circle, Port Richey, FL 34668 $508,171 0004 8135 Bugle Court, Port Richey, FL 34668 $508,171 0005 8131 Bugle Court, Port Richey, FL 34668 $508,171 0006 8121 Bugle Court, Port Richey, FL 34668 $508,171 0007 8111 Bugle Court, Port Richey, FL 34668 $508,171 0008 8110 Bugle Court, Port Richey, FL 34668 $508,171 0009 8130 Bugle Court, Port Richey, FL 34668 $508,171 0010 8141 Bugle Court, Port Richey, FL 34668 $508,171 0013 8150 Braddock Circle, Port Richey, FL 34668 $508,171 * * * CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION COVERAGE FORM A. Coverage We will pay for direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property at the premises described in the Declarations caused by or resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss. 1. Covered Property Covered Property, as used in this Coverage Part, means the type of property described in this section, A.1., and limited in A.2., Property Not Covered, if a limit of Insurance is shown in the Declarations for that type of property. a. Building, meaning the building or structure described in the Declarations… * * * 4. Loss Payment a. In the event of loss or damage covered by this Coverage Form, at our option, we will either: (1) Pay the value of lost or damaged property; (2) Pay the cost of repairing or replacing the lost or damaged property, subject to b. below; (3) Take all or any part of the property at an agreed or appraised value; or (4) Repair, rebuild or replace the property with other property of like kind and quality, subject to b. below. We will determine the value of lost or damaged property, or the cost of its repair or replacement, in accordance with the applicable terms of the Valuation Condition in this Coverage Form or any applicable provision which amends or supersedes the Valuation Condition. * * * FLORIDA CHANGES – RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATIONS A. Building section is replaced by the following: 1. Building, meaning the building or structure described in the Declarations, including: a. Additions, alterations and repairs; b. Fixtures, outside of individual units, including outdoor fixtures; c. Permanently installed: (1) Machinery; and (2) Equipment; * * * THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. FLORIDA – SINKHOLE LOSS COVERAGE This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: BUILDING AND PERSONAL PROPERTY COVERAGE FORM CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION COVERAGE FORM A. The following is added to this Coverage Part as a Covered Cause of Loss… “Sinkhole Loss”, meaning loss or damage to Covered Property when “structural damage” to the “covered building”, including the foundation, is caused by settlement or systematic weaking of the earth supporting the “covered building”, only if the settlement or systematic weakening results from contemporaneous movement or raveling of soils, sediments, or rock materials into subterranean voids created by the effect of water on a limestone or similar rock formation. Coverage for “Sinkhole Loss” includes stabilization of the building (including land stabilization) and repair to the foundation, provided such work is in accordance with the requirements of Florida Insurance Law and in accordance with the recommendation of a professional engineer and with notice to you. The professional engineer must be selected or approved by us. However, until you enter into a contract for performance of building stabilization or foundation repair in accordance with the recommendations of the professional engineer as set forth in a report from us: 1. We will not pay for underpinning or grouting or any other repair technique performed below the existing foundation of the building; and 2. Our payment for “Sinkhole Loss” to Covered Property may be limited to the actual cash value of the loss to such property. * * * Deductible The following deductible provision applies to any loss covered by this endorsement and, in that respect, replaces any deductible provision in the policy to which this endorsement is attached: We will pay only that part of the loss which exceeds the “Sinkhole Loss” Deductible shown on the Declarations. This deductible will apply separately to each building and each “sinkhole loss”. B. You must enter into a contract for the performance of building stabilization and/or foundation repair in accordance with the aforementioned recommendations, within 90 days after we notify you that there is coverage for your “Sinkhole Loss.” After you have entered into such contract, we will pay the amounts necessary to begin and perform such repairs as the work is performed and the expenses are incurred. However, if the professional engineer determines, prior to your entering into the aforementioned contract or prior to the start of repair work, that the repairs will exceed the applicable Limit of Insurance, we must either complete the recommended repairs or pay that Limit of Insurance upon such determination. If the aforementioned determination is made during the course of repair work and we have begun making payments for the work performed, we must either complete the recommended repairs or pay only the remaining portion of the applicable Limit of Insurance upon such determination. The most we will pay for the total of all “Sinkhole Loss,” including building and land stabilization and foundation repair, is the applicable Limit of Insurance on the affected building. The stabilization and all other repairs to the Covered Property must be completed within 12 months after entering into the contract for the performance of these repairs, unless: 1. There is a mutual agreement between you and us; 2. The claim is involved with the neutral evaluation process; 3. The claim is in litigation; or 4. The claim is under appraisal or mediation. * * * E. With respect to a claim for alleged “Sinkhole Loss”, the following provision is added: Following receipt by us of a report from a professional engineer or professional geologist on the cause of loss and recommendations for land stabilization and repair of property, or if we deny your claim, we will notify you of your right to participate in a neutral evaluation program administered by the Florida Department of Financial Services (hereinafter referred to as the Department). For alleged “Sinkhole Loss” to commercial residential or farm residential properties, this program applies instead of any mediation procedure set forth elsewhere in this policy, but does not invalidate the Appraisal Condition. You or we may file a request with the Department for neutral evaluation; the other party must comply with such request. We will pay reasonable costs associated with the neutral evaluation, regardless of which party makes the request. But if a party chooses to hire a court reporter or stenographer to contemporaneously record and document the neutral evaluation, that party must bear the costs of those services. The neutral evaluator will be selected from a list maintained by the Department. The recommendation of the neutral evaluator will not be binding on you or us. Participation in the neutral evaluation program does not change your right to file suit against us in accordance with the Legal Action Against Us Condition in this policy, except that the time for filing suit is extended for a period of 60 days following the conclusion of the neutral evaluation process or five years, whichever is later. * * * H. The following definitions are added with respect to the coverage provided under this endorsement: 1. “Structural damage” means a “covered building”, regardless of the date of its construction, has experienced the following. a. Interior floor displacement or deflection in excess of acceptable variances as defined in ACI 117-90 or the Florida Building Code, which results in settlement related damage to the interior such that the interior building structure or members become unfit for service or represent a safety hazard as defined within the Florida Building Code; b. Foundation displacement or deflection in excess of acceptable variances as defined in ACI 318-95 or the Florida Building Code, which results in settlement related damage to the primary structural members or primary structural systems that prevents those members or systems from supporting the loads and forces they were designed to support to the extent that stresses in those primary structural members or primary structural systems exceed one and one-third the nominal strength allowed under the Florida Building Code for new buildings or similar structure, purpose, or location. c. Damage that results in listing, leaning, or buckling of the exterior load bearing walls or other vertical primary structural members to such an extent that a plumb line passing through the center of gravity does not fall inside the middle one-third of the base as defined within the Florida Building Code; d. Damage that results in the building, or any portion of the building containing primary structural members or primary structural systems, being significantly likely to imminently collapse because of the movement or instability of the ground within the influence zone of the supporting ground within the sheet plane necessary for the purpose of supporting such building as defined within the Florida Building Code; or e. Damage occurring on or after October 15, 2005, that qualifies as substantial structural damage as defined in the Florida Building Code. 2. “Primary structural member” means a structural element designed to provide support and stability for the vertical or lateral loads of the overall structure. 3. “Primary structural system” means an assemblage of “primary structural members”. 4. “Covered building” means the Building Property at the insured location that is listed on the Schedule or Declarations. This definition does not extend to any structures that are attached to the livable square footage of this stand-alone structure, unless the structure is under the same roofline or foundation line and depth as the “covered building.” * * * 6. “Sinkhole” means a landform created by subsidence of soil, sediment, or rock as underlying strata are dissolved by groundwater. A “sinkhole” forms by collapse in subterranean voids created by dissolution of limestone or dolostone or by subsidence as these strata are dissolved. 7. “Sinkhole activity” means settlement or systematic weakening of the earth supporting the “covered building” only if the settlement or systematic weakening results from contemporaneous movement or raveling of soils, sediments, or rock material into subterranean voids created by the effect of water on limestone or similar rock formation.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. AMERICAN COASTAL INSURANCE COMPANY (“ACIC”), has breached this duty by its adjustment of the policyholder’s claim of loss. ACIC has failed to create and implement adequate guidelines for proper investigation and evaluation of claims and for training and supervision of employees resulting in statutory violations as set forth herein. ACIC has failed and/or refused to thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigate and evaluate the policyholders’ insurance claim for damages based on all information available and has instead ignored relevant and obvious information that evidences that additional payment is required under the policy. Notwithstanding the timely notification of the insurance claim, ACIC wrongfully denied coverage for and refused to tender to the policyholders all insurance proceeds due and owing under the insurance policy. To date, notwithstanding the policyholders’ pleas otherwise, ACIC has refused to acknowledge its obligation to tender all monies due and owing or assist the policyholder in the mitigation of its damages. The policyholder is Timber Oaks Fairway Villas Condo IV Assn Inc (“Timber Oaks”) whose property was damaged as the result of a sinkhole loss discovered in or about November 2020. Damages resulting from sinkhole loss are undisputedly covered under the relevant insurance policy. The policyholder timely notified ACIC of the damages on November 19, 2020, and opened a claim pursuant to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In response to the claim for benefits, on November 23, 2020, ACIC sent correspondence to Timber Oaks acknowledging receipt of the claim. Thereafter, the claimed damages were expanded to all 13 building locations. ACIC retained ROL Insurance Consulting to inspect the buildings. Morgan Evans of ROL Insurance Consulting performed the inspections on February 15 and February 16, 2021, along with Timber Oak’s representatives, Dave Mast of Keys Claims Consultants and Ian Force of Qualified Property Management. Following the inspections, on March 11, 2021, ACIC retained SDII Global to conduct a structural damage evaluation of the thirteen locations. The initial purpose of the investigation was to determine if structural damage exists at the property and, to the extent possible, the probable causes contributing to the observed damage, especially structural damage, at the property. Following unknown communications between ACIC and SDII Global regarding the observed structural findings, ACIC authorized SDII Global to extend the scope of the investigation to include testing for sinkhole activity on June 7, 2021. Thereafter, SDII Global performed site inspections; Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) surveys around the perimeter and inside of the structure to identify anomalous subsurface areas within the zone of influence of the foundation and in other areas of interest; test pits were excavated to directly observe foundation construction and geometry; hand auger borings and push penetrometer soundings were advanced to determine the composition and relative penetration resistances of subsurface materials near the foundation and the upper zone of influence of the structure; Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings were advanced in areas of interest adjacent to the foundation in order to characterize the relative stability of soils within the zone of influence of the structure and to investigate deeper geologic conditions for the presence of evidence of sinkhole activity; and soilers were tested in the laboratory. Following this testing, SDII Global prepared reports positively identifying sinkhole activity at location 1 (8131 Braddock Circle); Location 3 (8151 Braddock Circle); Location 4 (8135 Bugle Court); Location 5 (8131 Bugle Court); Location 6 (8121 Bugle Court); Location 7 (8111 Bugle Court); Location 8 (8110 Bugle Court); Location 9 (8130 Bugle Court); Location 10 (8141 Bugle Court); and Location 13 (8150 Braddock Circle). SDII Global went on to recommend that the subsurface soils be stabilized through compaction grout injections to densify the soils beneath the structure and to seal the top of the limestone surface to minimize future raveling; and following the compaction grout injection, due to the presence of very loose shallow soils identified in the SPT borings that may not sufficiently be densified through compaction grouting, SDII recommended a supplemental program of shallow chemical grout injection to stabilize the shallow soils around the perimeter of the structure and beneath most CMU load-bearing walls. SDII Global estimated the cost of the subsurface remediation, monitoring, and certification to be approximately $166,215 for Location 1; $174,675 for Location 3; $174,675 for Location 4; $131,835 for Location 5; $183,135 for Location 6; $195,555 for Location 7; $174,675 for Location 8; $174,675 for Location 9; $131,835 for Location 10; and $195,555 for Location 13. While SDII Global states in its reports that structural damage as defined by §627.706(2)(k), Fla. Stat. did not exist for Locations 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 13, SDII Global further advised ACIC that “it is SDII’s opinion that the sinkhole activity identified at the site has been a concurrent cause of some of the observed damage” and that “the tests performed were of sufficient scope to identify sinkhole activity, as defined by §627.706, F.S.(2)(i) as a cause of damage at the building.” Conveniently, after estimating approximately $1,702,830 in total necessary subsurface repairs to the insured buildings, SDII Global ignored obvious structural damage to “eliminate” structural damage and determine that there was no covered sinkhole loss. Essentially, ACIC misrepresented to Timber Oaks that approximately $1,702,830 of necessary subsurface repairs were not covered under the insurance policy. In January, February, March and April 2022, ACIC sporadically provided coverage letters to Timber Oaks denying all coverage for the claimed damages. Timber Oaks disagreed with ACIC’s blatant attempt to avoid liability for the sinkhole damages and retained its own engineer to evaluate the damages to the properties. On March 10, 2023, Timber Oaks provided reports prepared by Structural Engineering and Inspections (“SEI”) for Locations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 13 to ACIC. The SEI reports detailed the observations at each of these locations and the basis for a determination that these locations DID MEET the criteria for structural damage as defined by Florida Statute §627.706(2)(k). Ultimately, SEI determined that Locations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 13 all sustained covered sinkhole losses and provided repair recommendations to stabilize the land and buildings and repair the foundations. There appears to have been little, if any, real analysis of the SEI reports before ACIC summarily rejected SEI’s findings and further delayed the resolution of the claim by invoking neutral evaluation. On May 23, 2023, ACIC submitted its request for neutral evaluation to the Florida Department of Financial Services. Further, rather than putting the SEI reports through a proper and unbiased peer review, ACIC chose to utilize the same outcome-oriented engineering firm, SDII Global, to in essence check their own work. ACIC was provided this “peer review” on June 30, 2023. Notably after it had already rejected the SEI reports and compelled its policyholder to participate in neutral evaluation. On April 18, 2024, the Florida Department of Financial Services finally processed the request for neutral evaluation and Ray Jones formally accepted the assignment as neutral evaluator. Thereafter, the neutral evaluation process proceeded forward. The numerous deficiencies in ACIC’s handling of this claim are due to its failure to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims in violation of §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), and its underlying intent to deprive Timber Oaks from the amounts owed under their insurance policy for the goal of maximizing its own profits. Since the beginning of the claim, ACIC has engaged in a pattern of delay and denial that has harmed Timber Oaks. ACIC has not settled the claim when it could and should have done so had it acted fairly and honestly and has failed to take into account the information and evidence that clearly shows/ed payment is owed. ACIC has misrepresented pertinent facts and insurance policy provisions, most notably that Locations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 13 did not sustain structural damages as defined by Florida law. ACIC has refused to pay the policyholder’s claim without conducting a reasonable investigation based upon all available information. Specifically, ACIC retained outcome-oriented personnel to perform the inspection with the goal of denying coverage for a covered sinkhole loss. Moreover, when presented with evidence of structural damage, ACIC went back to the same outcome-oriented company to re-confirm its prior findings rather than seek out an unbiased review of all the data and information. The actions and violations noted above were either done intentionally or as the result of ACIC’s failure to adopt and implement the proper standards for the investigation and adjustment of claims. Overall, ACIC’s investigation and handling of the claim was inadequate and contrary to its obligations under the insurance policy and Florida law. Timber Oaks has done everything legally requested by ACIC to date. To cure the violations set forth in this Civil Remedy Notice, ACIC must now agree to acknowledge its duties and obligations under the law in adjusting its policyholder’s claim, and tender rightfully owed insurance benefits to return Timber Oaks to its pre-loss condition. The concept of insurance is that insurance is the insurer’s granting of timely and prompt indemnity or security against a contingent loss. Florida law 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 the policyholder may mitigate its damages and to put it back into the position it was in prior to the loss as quickly as possible. ACIC breached this duty. Timber Oaks was and still is forced to expend monies to submit the insurance claim and support this dispute, e.g., retaining experts, and legal counsel, to force ACIC to honor its obligations under the insurance policy and to pay all the insurance proceeds due and owing Timber Oaks. ACIC has refused and/or failed to tender all insurance proceeds to Timber Oaks upon demand. ACIC’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 the policyholder is wrongful conduct. Timber Oaks contends that ACIC has financially benefited from its improper withholding of due and owing insurance proceeds by profiting from the “float”. Furthermore, Timber Oaks contends that ACIC and/or its representatives financially benefit from such unfair trade practices as a part of their general business practices. Timber Oaks contends that ACIC pressures its agents and/or representatives, through financial incentives, to look for reasons to underpay or deny claims instead of fulfilling their obligations to do the opposite as a general business practice. Specifically, Timber Oaks contends that ACIC’s management and executive leadership are engaged in a scheme to minimize and delay payments on legitimate claims in order to increase the company’s loss ratios and other financial metrics. This notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by Florida Statutes, including any and all bad faith/extra contractual damages, should ACIC fail to cure the violations set forth in this Civil Remedy Notice within the given cure period. Timber Oaks also intends to seek punitive damages against ACIC as it appears that ACIC’s violations occur with such frequency as to evidence a general business practice and the violations were willful, wanton and malicious and in reckless disregard for the rights of its insureds. While no specific “cure amount” is required for this Civil Remedy Notice to be valid,Timber Oaks will consider the allegations contained herein “cured” if ACIC: (1) Immediately tenders $3,056,082.20. While Timber Oaks is requesting that this be done to “cure” this Civil Remedy Notice, they are willing to consider, and may accept, any reasonable counteroffer. Therefore, if ACIC disagrees with the requests, Timber Oaks requests that ACIC make a counteroffer before the end of the “cure period” and provide supporting documentation for any such offer.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
ccambo@camboferry.com 08-19-2025 August 19, 2025 Via E-Mail Only Timber Oaks Fairway Villas Condo IV Assn., Inc. c/o Ashley Harris, Esq. Merlin Law Group 777 S. Harbour Island Blvd., Suite 950 Tampa, FL 33602 aharris@merlinlawgroup.com RE: Matter: Timber Oaks Fairway Villas Condo IV Assn., Inc. Claim Number: 4179479 Policy Number: AMC-31712-05 DFS Filing Number: 827942 Dear Timber Oaks Fairway Villas Condo IV Assn., Inc.: As you know, my firm has been retained to represent American Coastal Insurance Company (“AmCoastal”) in the above-referenced matter. Please allow this letter to acknowledge that American Coastal is in receipt of the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations bearing Filing No. 827942 (the “Notice” or the “CRN”) filed on behalf of Timber Oaks Fairway Villas Condo IV Assn., Inc. (the “Insured”). The Notice is void because it is legally invalid. Beyond that, the allegations in the Notice have no merit. I. The Civil Remedy Notice is legally invalid. The filing of a valid Civil Remedy Notice is a condition precedent to an action brought pursuant to section 624.155, Florida Statutes. Talat Enter., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1283 (Fla. 2000). Because the statute is in derogation of the common law, it must be strictly construed. Id. “[A]ny statute in derogation of the common law requires strict compliance with its provisions by one seeking to avail himself of its benefits.” Florida Steel Corp. v. Adaptable Devs., Inc., 503 So. 2d 1232, 1234 (Fla. 1986). Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, requires a civil remedy notice to provide specific information to put the insurer on notice of the alleged violation. Additionally, a civil remedy notice must be “specific enough to provide insurers notice of the wrongdoing so the insurer can cure the same within sixty days.” Valenti v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 8:04CV1615T-30TGW, 2006 WL 1627276, at *2 (M.D. Fla. 2006). Here, the Notice is invalid because it does not contain all of the information required by section 624.155. Also, it is invalid because it lacks sufficient specificity to provide notice to AmCoastal of the alleged wrongdoing, as discussed below. First, the CRN does not provide any specific supporting facts and merely makes conclusory statement. Instead, the allegations in the CRN are mere self-serving and conclusory statements without substance or relation to any alleged violation. This undermines the purpose of the CRN requirement preventing AmCoastal from investigating and resolving any of the alleged violations. The failure to provide any specific supporting facts for the allegations renders the CRN invalid. Second, the CRN fails to relate the specific policy language to the alleged violation as required by Fla. Stat. §624.155(3)(b)4. The CRN simply contains a block quote list of coverages, isolated excerpts of the policy, and partially quoted policy sections without specification. Pursuant to Fla. Stat. §624.155(3)(b)4, the CRN must cite to the specific policy language that is relevant to the alleged violations. However, the failure to advise of any policy provision in dispute prevents AmCoastal from addressing any issues regarding the policy the Complainant alleges to have been violated, which is the underlying purpose of Fla. Stat. §624.155(3)(b)4. The CRN, therefore, is statutorily deficient because it does not comply with the requirements set forth in Fla. Stat. §624.155(3)(b)4. Third, the boilerplate CRN lacks sufficient specificity to provide notice of the alleged bad-faith conduct. The CRN lists five (5) different statutes which AmCoastal allegedly violated. However, the CRN fails to provide any relevant facts supporting the alleged violations or relating these alleged violations to the five (5) cited statutes. Because the Civil Remedy Notice fails to relate the cited statutes to any facts explaining why the Insured believes AmCoastal violated the statutes, AmCoastal is unable to properly respond, and the CRN is invalid and should be rejected and returned. Specifically, AmCoastal states as follows: • Alleged violation of §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 failure and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests. o AmCoastal specifically denies any violation of the cited Statute. AmCoastal has at all times attempted to settle this matter in good faith. o Based on its investigation and engineering findings, AmCoastal initially denied coverage for claim number 4179479. However, on May 23, 2023, AmCoastal submitted its Neutral Evaluation request to the DFS in an effort to fairly and expeditiously resolve this dispute and claim. o On September 23, 2024, the Neutral Evaluation Conference took place. o On July 11, 2025, Neutral Evaluator Raymond Jones, P.E. of Andreyev Engineering, Inc. submitted the following documentation to the DFS with respect to the Neutral Evaluation Process completed for the insured property. ? Sinkhole activity and loss was verified on 11 of the 13 insured buildings: Buildings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 13. ? The estimated cost amount for subsurface repairs and cosmetic damage for all 11 buildings totaled: $3,072.404.14 (ACV)/$3,225,781.63 (RCV). ? After the application of the 3% sinkhole deductible of $167,969.43, the total amount of the Neutral Evaluation award comes to: $3,058,082.20 (RCV)/$2,904,434.71 (ACV). o On July 21, 2025, the DFS issued its Neutral Evaluation Report (“July 21, 2025 Neutral Evaluation Report”), which contained numerous modifications to the July 11, 2025 form submitted by the Neutral Evaluator, Raymond Jones, P.E. for the subject property on July 11, 2025. Additionally, it contained a significantly higher total repair cost of $5,893,029.00 for subsurface remediation and cosmetic repairs. o On July 21, 2025, AmCoastal wrote to Mr. Jones to request clarification on the Neutral Evaluation Report and findings. o On July 22, 2025, Mr. Jones confirmed that the July 21, 2025 Neutral Evaluation Report is incorrect, it is not reflective of his findings, and he reiterated his findings of the total gross amount of his award of $3,072,404.14 (ACV) and 3,225,778.63 (RCV) for the subject claim, claim no. 4179479. o On August 15, 2025, AmCoastal’s check for payment for claim no. 4179479 in the amount of $3,058,082.20 payable to “Merlin Law Group and Timber Oaks Fairway Villas Condo IV Association” was delivered via FedEx with tracking no. 883574724570 to your counsel’s office. This payment confirms AmCoastal’s acceptance Neutral Evaluator’s findings confirming sinkhole presence at the insured property, as well as claim payment of the RCV amount of the Neutral Evaluator’s repair estimate for both subsurface remediation and cosmetic repairs less the applicable sinkhole deductible, which totals as follows: ? $3,225,778.63 (RCV for subsurface remediation and cosmetic repairs) ? -($167,696.43 (Sinkhole Deductible)) ? $3,058,082,20 net payment o AmCoastal’s investigation of the subject claim to date has been proper, thorough and expeditious. o AmCoastal has at all times attempted to settle this matter in good faith. Further, AmCoastal timely agreed to the Neutral Evaluator’s findings and agreed, in writing, to comply with the recommendations of the Neutral Evaluator, and tendered payment of the RCV amount of the award, even though repairs have not begun and the expenses have not yet been incurred by the insured. • Alleged violation of §624.155(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. o AmCoastal specifically denies any violation of the cited Statute. At no point has AmCoastal made any material misrepresentation to its insured or the insured’s representative regarding this claim. o Based on its investigation and engineering findings, AmCoastal initially denied coverage for claim number 4179479. However, on May 23, 2023, AmCoastal submitted its Neutral Evaluation request to the DFS in an effort to fairly and expeditiously resolve this dispute and claim. o On September 23, 2024, the Neutral Evaluation Conference took place. o On July 11, 2025, Neutral Evaluator Raymond Jones, P.E. of Andreyev Engineering, Inc. submitted the documentation to the DFS with respect to the Neutral Evaluation Process completed for the insured property for claim no. 4179479. Per the estimates submitted by Mr. Jones, the repair costs for subsurface remediation and cosmetic damages total: $3,072,404.14 (ACV) and $3,225,778.63 (RCV). o On August 15, 2025, AmCoastal’s check for payment for claim no. 4179479 in the amount of $3,058,082.20 payable to “Merlin Law Group and Timber Oaks Fairway Villas Condo IV Association” was delivered via FedEx with tracking no. 883574724570 to your counsel’s office. This payment confirms AmCoastal’s acceptance Neutral Evaluator’s findings confirming sinkhole presence at the insured property, as well as claim payment of the RCV amount of the Neutral Evaluator’s repair estimate for both subsurface remediation and cosmetic repairs less the applicable sinkhole deductible, which totals as follows: ? $3,225,778.63 (RCV for subsurface remediation and cosmetic repairs) ? -($167,696.43 (Sinkhole Deductible)) ? $3,058,082,20 net payment o AmCoastal’s investigation of the subject claim to date has been proper, thorough and expeditious. o AmCoastal has at all times attempted to settle this matter in good faith. Further, AmCoastal timely agreed to the Neutral Evaluator’s findings and agreed, in writing, to comply with the recommendations of the Neutral Evaluator, and tendered payment of the RCV amount of the award, even though repairs have not begun and the expenses have not yet been incurred by the insured. • Alleged violation of §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) – Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. o AmCoastal specifically denies any violation of the cited Statute. AmCoastal’s investigation of the subject claim to date has been proper, thorough and expeditious. o Further, AmCoastal timely agreed to the Neutral Evaluator’s findings and agreed, in writing, to comply with the recommendations of the Neutral Evaluator, and tendered payment of the RCV amount of the award, even though repairs have not begun and the expenses have not yet been incurred by the insured. • Alleged violation of §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) – Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. o AmCoastal specifically denies any violation of the cited Statute. AmCoastal has not misrepresented any facts or policy provisions relating to coverage in this claim and the CRN does not provide a single instance in which this occurred to support the claim for this alleged violation. o AmCoastal specifically denies any violation of the cited Statute. At no point has AmCoastal made any material misrepresentation to its insured or the insured’s representative regarding this claim. • Alleged violation of §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) – Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information. o AmCoastal specifically denies any violation of the cited Statute. Indeed, coverage was opened for the subject claim, and substantial claim payments over and above what is contractually owed at this time were issued and received by the insured consistent with the policy have been issued. Moreover, AmCoastal’s investigation was thorough, as explained throughout this response. o Based on its investigation and engineering findings, AmCoastal initially denied coverage for claim number 4179479. However, on May 23, 2023, AmCoastal submitted its Neutral Evaluation request to the DFS in an effort to fairly and expeditiously resolve this dispute and claim. o On September 23, 2024, the Neutral Evaluation Conference took place. o On July 11, 2025, Neutral Evaluator Raymond Jones, P.E. of Andreyev Engineering, Inc. submitted the documentation to the DFS with respect to the Neutral Evaluation Process completed for the insured property for claim no. 4179479. Per the estimates submitted by Mr. Jones, the repair costs for subsurface remediation and cosmetic damages total: $3,072,404.14 (ACV) and $3,225,778.63 (RCV). o On August 15, 2025, AmCoastal’s check for payment for claim no. 4179479 in the amount of $3,058,082.20 payable to “Merlin Law Group and Timber Oaks Fairway Villas Condo IV Association” was delivered via FedEx with tracking no. 883574724570 to your counsel’s office. This payment confirms AmCoastal’s acceptance Neutral Evaluator’s findings confirming sinkhole presence at the insured property, as well as claim payment of the RCV amount of the Neutral Evaluator’s repair estimate for both subsurface remediation and cosmetic repairs less the applicable sinkhole deductible, which totals as follows: ? $3,225,778.63 (RCV for subsurface remediation and cosmetic repairs) ? -($167,696.43 (Sinkhole Deductible)) ? $3,058,082,20 net payment o AmCoastal’s investigation of the subject claim to date has been proper, thorough and expeditious. o AmCoastal has at all times attempted to settle this matter in good faith. Further, AmCoastal timely agreed to the Neutral Evaluator’s findings and agreed, in writing, to comply with the recommendations of the Neutral Evaluator, and tendered payment of the RCV amount of the award, even though repairs have not begun and the expenses have not yet been incurred by the insured. Moreover, vaguely referring to alleged schemes to minimize and delay payment on claims in which the alleged violations occurred without reference to the total amount of claims handled is insufficient to establish a general business practice. See Kafie v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 2011 WL 4499051 (S.D. Fla. September 27, 2011).” In addition, the mere fact that other insureds have filed CRNs is not evidence that an insurer assessed those other claims in bad faith. It is merely evidence that other insureds were not satisfied with the insurer’s initial assessment of the claim. See Fox Haven of Foxfire Condo. IV Ass’n, Inc. v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2015 WL 667935 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 17, 2015); Shannon R. Ginn Const. Co. v. Reliance Ins. Co., 51 F. Supp. 2d 1347, 1354 (S.D. Fla. 1999)(holding that “unsworn complaints from cases in other jurisdictions” submitted “to show that other plaintiffs have alleged that Reliance conducts its claims practice unfairly” are “nothing more than conclusory allegations, and as such, are inadmissible hearsay” and must be disregarded by the court); Chicken Kitchen USA, LLC v. Maiden Specialty Ins. Co., 2016 WL 3982493, at *2 (S.D. Fla. July 22, 2016)(holding that “allegations in unsworn complaints filed in other cases cannot be used as evidence of an insurer’s general business practices for purposes of establishing a punitive damages claim”).” This deficiency applies to all allegations in the Notice, including but not limited to Claim Denial, Claim Delay, Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer, Unfair Trade Practice, and Violation of Adjusters' Ethical Requirements, supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), §624.155(1)(i)(2), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), Florida Statutes. Finally, the CRN does not identify the correct insured location(s) or the correct mailing address as reflected on the declarations pages of the Policy. Additionally, the CRN does not identify the carrier’s address. Because the CRN fails to comply with the information requirements promulgated by the Department of Financial Services, it is legally invalid. See Pin-Pon Corp. v. Landmark Ins. Co., 500 F. Supp. 3d 1336 (S.D. Fla. 2020); Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021); Demase v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 7760 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022). Again, in serving this response, AmCoastal reserves all rights under Florida law to be served with a properly completed and statutorily compliant CRN. As the CRN fails to strictly comply with the requirements of section 624.155, Florida Statutes, it is legally insufficient and should be rejected. I. The Civil Remedy Notice Lacks Merit. The Notice also lacks merit. The insured’s Notice completely omits any information regarding the Neutral Evaluation Process that occurred with respect to this claim. The Neutral Evaluation Process is a non-binding alternative dispute method to resolve sinkhole claims such as this one, and it is governed by Fla. Stat. §627.7074. The purpose of the neutral evaluation process is to provide a fair and impartial resolution to sinkhole disputes and claims. AmCoastal sent its initial request to the Florida Department of Financial Services requesting neutral evaluation for the subject claim on May 23, 2023. AmCoastal requested that the parties participate in the Neutral Evaluation Process for the specific purpose of attempting to resolve the claim. On September 23, 2024, the Neutral Evaluation Conference took place. In attendance at the conference was the Neutral Evaluator Raymond Jones, P.E.; Ashley Harris of Merlin Law Group, representing the insured; Byron Anderson from Structural Engineering and Inspections, Inc., on behalf of the insured; David Maldoff of Butler Law, representing the insurer; Sandy Crump of Crump Engineering, Inc. on behalf of the insurer, and Steve Meiggs, P.E. of SDII on behalf of the insurer. On June 19, 2025, the Neutral Evaluator, Raymond Jones, P.E. of Anreyev Engineering, Inc. emailed the insured’s counsel and the insurer’s counsel to provide the parties with his preliminary findings and reports outlining the subsurface repair methodology, subsurface repair estimates, and the cosmetic repair estimates for each of the following eleven (11) of thirteen (13) total insured buildings with confirmed sinkhole loss and damage: Buildings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 13. The estimated cost amount for subsurface repairs and cosmetic damage for all buildings totaled: $3,072.404.14 (ACV)/$3,225,781.63 (RCV). After the application of the 3% sinkhole deductible of $167,969.43, the total amount of the Neutral Evaluation award comes to: $3,058,082.20 (RCV)/$2,904,434.71 (ACV). On June 19, 2025, the same day that the Neutral Evaluator’s Preliminary Reports and findings were sent to the parties, the insured’s counsel filed the subject CRN was filed demanding payment of $3,056,082.20, without explanation. Notably absent from the CRN was any mention, reference, or factual allegations regarding the Neutral Evaluator’s preliminary findings and estimates that presumably formed the basis for the cure amount listed in the CRN. The CRN alleges that AmCoastal submitted its request for neutral evaluation on May 23, 2023. However, consistent with the purpose and intent of the Neutral Evaluation statute and process, AmCoastal requested neutral evaluation for the purpose of resolving the subject claim, not to allow the insured to weaponize the neutral evaluator’s award by filing a CRN the same day as the parties received the NE’s preliminary report and findings that amplifies the dispute by attempting to manufacture a bad faith claim where no such factual basis exists for such a claim to be asserted against AmCoastal. On June 19, 2025, the Neutral Evaluator sent the parties documentation reflecting the net RCV amount of the Neutral Evaluator’s award for subsurface repairs and cosmetic repairs to all eleven (11) insured buildings of $3,225,781.63 (RCV) less $167,969.43 (sinkhole deductible) for an RCV net total of $3,058,082.20. However, the cure amount sought in the subject CRN is $3,056,082.20, which is slightly less than the RCV amount of the Neutral Evaluator’s award less the deductible. On June 26, 2025, the undersigned sent correspondence to your counsel acknowledging receipt of the CRN and requesting additional information, as the CRN was a transparent attempt to ripen a bad faith action despite AmCoastal following and participating in the neutral evaluation process as provided by Florida law. Additionally, AmCoastal highlighted the insured’s delays and actions in completing the neutral evaluation process. The delays in completing the neutral evaluation process caused by the insured and/or the insured’s representatives included, but were not limited to, the insured’s representatives failing to appear to various mutually coordinated inspections with the neutral evaluator, the respective parties’ experts, and the insured association. In that correspondence, AmCoastal sought an explanation and response from the insured as to why the insured and its representatives caused delays in the completion of the neutral evaluation process and why it was being claimed that the delays in resolving this claim were caused by AmCoastal, when Amcoastal has at all times followed the neutral evaluation process provided by Florida law. In response, counsel for the insured sent correspondence on July 8, 2025, which quoted AmCoastal’s questions to the insured as posed in the June 26, 2025, correspondence. However, the insured’s responses with respect to AmCoastal’s requests for clarification of the specific bad faith conduct at issue amounted to mostly copied and pasted excerpts of the allegations in the CRN. The insured continued to exclude any reference to the neutral evaluation process in the allegations of bad faith conduct against AmCoastal, and stated as follows: “The cure demand is calculated as the total neutral evaluation award for subsurface remediation in the amount of $2,665,250.00 in addition to the replacement cost value of the cosmetic damages in the amount of $558,528.63 less the $167,696.43 sinkhole deductible for a total cure amount of $3,056,082.20.” On July 11, 2025, Neutral Evaluator Raymond Jones, P.E. of Andreyev Engineering, Inc. submitted his Neutral Evaluation Report, Disposition of Neutral Evaluation – Sinkhole Insurance Form (“July 11, 2025 Neutral Evaluation Report”), as well as the following documentation, to the DFS with respect to the Neutral Evaluation Process completed for the insured property: • July 11, 2025 Neutral Evaluator’s Report, with the following findings in the following sections of the form: o Neutral Evaluator’s Opinion: Sinkhole Loss Verified o Subsurface Repairs, Cosmetic Repairs, and Total Cost Amounts were all attached to the o Methods of Stabilization & Repair; Above and Below Ground: ? Portland cement grout injections and chemical grout injections below ground and cosmetic repairs above ground. ? Please note that this claim involves 11 separate multi-family structures, and the summary of the estimated repair costs for each building is included on the attached spreadsheet. o Eleven (11) estimates for subsurface remediation and cosmetic repairs for each of the following buildings with confirmed sinkhole damage and loss: ? Building 1: • Total Subsurface Repair Estimate: $223,150.00 • Cosmetic Repairs, Actual Cash Value (“ACV”): $35,843.06 • Cosmetic Repairs, Replacement Cost Value (“RCV”): $48,751.25 • Total Estimate: $258,993.06 (ACV)/$271,901.25 (RCV) ? Building 2: • Total Subsurface Repair Estimate: $217,350.00 • Cosmetic Repairs, ACV: $35,644.67 • Cosmetic Repairs, RCV: $48,556.61 • Total Estimate: $252,994.67 (ACV)/$265,916.61 (RCV) ? Building 3: • Total Subsurface Repair Estimate: $247,750.00 • Cosmetic Repairs, ACV: $36,178.48 • Cosmetic Repairs, RCV: $49,166.94 • Total Estimate: $283,928.48 (ACV)/$296,916.94 (RCV) ? Building 4: • Total Subsurface Repair Estimate: $247,750.00 • Cosmetic Repairs, ACV: $41,396.00 • Cosmetic Repairs, RCV: $56,436.09 • Total Estimate: $289,146.00 (ACV)/$304,186.09 (RCV) ? Building 5: • Total Subsurface Repair Estimate: $174,950.00 • Cosmetic Repairs, ACV: $34,537.39 • Cosmetic Repairs, RCV: $47,347.55 • Total Estimate: $209,487.50 (ACV)/$222,297.55 (RCV) ? Building 6: • Total Subsurface Repair Estimate: $245,950.00 • Cosmetic Repairs, ACV: $36,939.04 • Cosmetic Repairs, RCV: $50,813.78 • Total Estimate: $282,889.04 (ACV)/$296,763.78 (RCV) ? Building 7: • Total Subsurface Repair Estimate: $261,750.00 • Cosmetic Repairs, ACV: $39,914.96 • Cosmetic Repairs, RCV: $55,219.72 • Total Estimate: $301,664.96 (ACV)/$317,041.72 (RCV) ? Building 8: • Total Subsurface Repair Estimate: $305,950.00 • Cosmetic Repairs, ACV: $40,613.64 • Cosmetic Repairs, RCV: $56,548.78 • Total Estimate: $346.563.64 (ACV)/$362,498.78 (RCV) ? Building 9: • Total Subsurface Repair Estimate: $248,550.00 • Cosmetic Repairs, ACV: $36,671.71 • Cosmetic Repairs, RCV: $50,643.57 • Total Estimate: $285,221.71 (ACV)/$299,193.57 (RCV) ? Building 10: • Total Subsurface Repair Estimate: $232,350.00 • Cosmetic Repairs, ACV: $32,552.48 • Cosmetic Repairs, RCV: $47,293.24 • Total Estimate: $264,902.48 (ACV)/$279,643.24 (RCV) ? Building 13: • Total Subsurface Repair Estimate: $261,750.00 • Cosmetic Repairs, ACV: $34,865.71 • Cosmetic Repairs, RCV: $47,669.10 • Total Estimate: $296,615.71 (ACV)/$309,419.10 (RCV) • Total subsurface remediation and cosmetic repairs for all eleven buildings: $3,072.404.14 (ACV)/$3,225,778.63 (RCV). On July 21, 2025, the DFS issued its Neutral Evaluation Report - Disposition of Sinkhole Insurance Form and sent same to Raymond Jones, P.E., Ashley Harris, Esq. (counsel for insured), and David Maldoff, Esq. (former counsel for AmCoastal). On July 21, 2025, Ms. Harris forwarded the DFS email and attached form to the undersigned counsel for AmCoastal. However, the July 21, 2025 DFS Neutral Evaluation Report, Disposition of Neutral Evaluation – Sinkhole Insurance Form (“July 21, 2025 DFS Neutral Evaluation Report”) contained numerous modifications to the July 11, 2025 Neutral Evaluation Report form submitted by the Neutral Evaluator, Raymond Jones, P.E. for the subject property on July 11, 2025. The first difference between the July 21, 2025 Neutral Evaluation Report and the July 11, 2025 Neutral Evaluation Report is that the July 21, 2025 Neutral Evaluation Report form checked the “Remediation Method Upheld” box instead of the “sinkhole loss verified” box that you checked in the July 11, 2025 Neutral Evaluation Report (and which would be consistent with the facts of our claim). Additionally, there is a big discrepancy between the amount of the award on the July 21, 2025 Neutral Evaluation Report the July 11, 2025 Neutral Evaluation Report and estimates from Andeyev Engineering. The July 11, 2025 Neutral Evaluation Report did not have the broken-down figures, and referred to the attachments for the amount of the award and specifications regarding the method of stabilization and repairs. The July 11, 2025 Neutral Evaluation Report referred to the eleven (11) building estimates that totaled $3,072.404.14 (ACV)/$3,225,778.63 (RCV) for both subsurface repairs and cosmetic repairs. The July 21, 2025 Neutral Evaluation Report states that the subsurface repair totals $2,667,250.00 and $3,222,779.00 for cosmetic repairs for a total repair cost of $5,893,029.00. On July 22, 2025, the undersigned counsel wrote to Mr. Jones and copied counsel for the insured to seek clarification on the July 11, 2025 Neutral Evaluation Report and the July 21, 2025 Neutral Evaluation Report. Specifically, it appeared to the undersigned that DFS had likely parsed out the subsurface amounts per building, to try and enter specific amounts for subsurface costs v. cosmetic repair costs in the July 21, 2025 Neutral Evaluation Report. However, what the DFS appears to have done is that they added up all the subsurface totals for the buildings to reach the $2,667,250.00 figure (which is consistent with Mr. Jones’ subsurface repair estimate), but then they took that $2,667,250 amount and added that amount to the total cosmetics plus subsurface award of $3,224,781 RCV amount together again to reach this $5.8Mfigure. In other words, if one adds up the subsurface totals for each building in Mr. Jones’ estimates/reports, it comes to $2,667,250.00, as reflected on the July 11, 2025 Neutral Evaluation Report Form, leaving $558,529 for cosmetic repairs based on the reports and award submitted by Mr. Jones on July 11, 2025. On July 22, 2025, Mr. Jones wrote back to the parties to advise that he did not prepare the second July 21, 2025 Neutral Evaluation Report. He also confirmed that he submitted the July 11, 2025 Neutral Evaluation Report and corresponding eleven (11) estimates to DFS on July 11, 2025.On July 22, 2025, the undersigned wrote back to Mr. Jones and copied counsel for the insured to request that Mr. Jones specifically confirm that the $5,8M total valuation included in the July 21, 2025 Neutral Evaluation Report is incorrect and was not Mr. Jones’ findings with respect to the subject claim and property. On July 22, 2025, Mr. Jones wrote back to confirm that the July 21, 2025 Neutral Evaluation Report is incorrect, it is not reflective of his findings, and he reiterated his findings of the total gross amount of his award of $3,072,404.14 (ACV) and 3,225,778.63 (RCV). On August 14, 2025, AmCoastal wrote to the insured advising that AmCoastal had completed its investigation and communicated its coverage determination. In that correspondence, AmCoastal wrote to accept the Neutral Evaluator’s findings, and issued payment in the amount of $3,058,082.20 based on the Neutral Evaluator's award. The correspondence also advised that Neutral Evaluator Raymond Jones estimated this damage at $3,225,778.63 at replacement cost value and noted the Policy’s deductible of $167,696.43 for this Claim. This August 14, 2025, correspondence was sent via FedEx with tracking no. 883574724570. On August 15, 2025, FedEx delivered the August 14, 2025, AmCoastal correspondence with an enclosed check for claim no. 4179479 in the amount of $3,058,082.20 payable to “Merlin Law Group and Timber Oaks Fairway Villas Condo IV Association.” On August 15, 2025, FedEx tracking confirmed that the insured’s counsel received the payment. Counsel for the insured also separately contacted the undersigned and confirmed receipt of AmCoastal’s check totaling $3,058,082.20. This check reflects payment of the Neutral Evaluator’s award per the July 11, 2024 Neutral Evaluation Report as confirmed by Mr. Jones on July 22, 2025. This payment also confirmed AmCoastal’s acceptance Neutral Evaluator’s findings verifying sinkhole presence at the insured property, as well as claim payment of the RCV amount of the Neutral Evaluator’s repair estimate for both subsurface remediation and cosmetic repairs less the applicable sinkhole deductible. This payment was issued pursuant to the policy and Florida law, not in breach of it, and certainly not in bad faith. Further, when AmCoastal issued payment on August 14, 2025, totaling $3,058,082.20 to the insured and the insured’s counsel, the claim payment issued was $2,000.00 more than the cure amount demanded in the subject CRN. Although AmCoastal expressly denies any and all allegations of bad faith, and without waiving any rights or defenses, in issuing payment for even more than the amount demanded in the CRN prior to the 60-day statutory cure period, AmCoastal cured any and all allegations of bad faith as a matter of law. In light of American Coastal’s investigation, the subject claim was properly investigated and claim payment was timely and properly issued for the covered damages under the subject claim, pursuant to the terms, conditions, exclusions, limits and deductible of the subject policy and Florida law. No further contractual or statutory amounts are due for the subject claim, and American Coastal denies any and all allegations of bad faith in connection with the claim submitted by Timber Oaks Fairway Villas Condo IV Assn., Inc. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, s/ Cristina P. Cambo Cristina P. Cambo, Esq.
Acknowledgement
* The submitter hereby states that this notice is given in order to perfect the rights of the person(s) damaged to pursue civil remedies authorized by Section 624.155, Florida Statutes.

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




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