Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     829238
Filing Accepted:  6/26/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
BAREFOOT PELICAN CONDO ASSOCIATION   First Name  
Street Address * 271 SOUTHBAY DR.
City, State Zip * NAPLES, FL 34108
Email Address * WDAMMAN@AUTOSTEEL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   BAREFOOT PELICAN CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION   First Name   LAUREL
Policy # * CRP 0000286-03 Claim #* ICAT-2022-V-0000030002
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* CLIFFORD First Name * GARRETT Initial
Street Address* 1112 GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD, SUITE 204
City, State Zip* NAPLES , FLORIDA 34102
Email Address * GCLIFFORD@VWFLEGAL.COM;LPERRY@VWFLEGAL.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   CENTAURI SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 12573
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* Y’EASHIA AARON, CAROL CRUMP, JAY WHIDBEE, DARIN WAYNE TEEMAN, GEORGE N. EUSTACE, JULIAN KNERLY, AND ALL OTHER RELATED ADJUSTERS, SUPERVISORS, MANAGEMENT AND INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH OR RETAINED BY THIS INSURER INVOLVED IN THIS CLAIM.
Type of Insurance * Commercial Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Unfair Trade Practice
Other : Violation of Adjusters' Ethical Requirements
* Statutory provision(s) which the insurer allegedly violated.
 
624.155(1)(b)(1) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests.
624.155(1)(b)(2) Making claims payments to insureds or beneficiaries not accompanied by a statement setting forth the coverage under which payments are being made.
624.155(1)(b)(3) Except as to liability coverages, failing to promptly settle claims, when the obligation to settle a claim has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage.
626.9541(1)(i)(2) A material misrepresentation made to an insured or any other person having an interest in the proceeds payable under such contract or policy, for the purpose and with the intent of effecting settlement of such claims, loss, or damage under such contract or policy on less favorable terms than those provided in, and contemplated by, such contract or policy.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e) Failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and, as to partial coverage, the dollar amount or extent of coverage, or failing to provide a written statement that the claim is being investigated, upon the written request of the insured within 30 days after proof-of-loss statements have been completed.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f) Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of the basis in the insurance policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g) Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h) Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary.
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.

POLICY PROVISIONS The violations asserted herein regarding Centauri Specialty Insurance Company’s bad faith actions are based heavily on the facts and circumstances based upon present information and belief, despite good faith disclosure of information by this carrier, asserted in the below section designated for same as well as violations of the portions of Florida Insurance Code and Florida Administrative Code upon which the bad faith statutes contained within Sections 624.155 & 626.9541, Florida Statutes, are based. With that said, and based upon information currently available, the following policy language is believed to be relevant to this carrier's statutory violations and bad faith conduct: LOSS PAYMENT “We will adjust all losses with you” under all applicable overages.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Form DFS-10-363, Rev. 10/14/2008, contains a field for the insured to include his email address. Prior to filing the CRN, said form contains an instruction that, in the event the insured does not with for certain information to become part of the public record, the insured must simply include the term “WITHHELD” to satisfy the filing requirement. This is further established through the following statement with appears in Civil Remedy Notices which have been filed: Warning! Information submitted as part of this civil remedy notice is a public record. Data entered into this form will be displayed on the DFS website for public review. Please DO NOT enter Social Security Numbers, personal medical information, personal financial information or any other information you do not want available for public review. As any information contained herein becomes part of the public record, the insured has withheld its email address so as not to make same available for public review and indicated same accordingly. Furthermore, as the insured is represented by counsel, it would be improper for any representative of this carrier to contact the insured directly for any reason utilizing his email address and, as such, the information is neither material to Centauri Specialty Insurance Company’s ability to correct the violations contained herein nor required by the Department of Financial Services. This insurance carrier should direct all follow-up correspondences to the attorney listed above. Furthermore, as the above section requests the identification of people with knowledge as to the allegations in the instant CRN often gets cut off, the following are those presently known to be responsible for the violations alleged herein: Y’eashia Aaron, Carol Crump, Jay Whidbee, Darin Wayne Teeman, George N. Eustace, Julian Knerly, and all other related adjusters, supervisors, management and individuals associated with or retained by this insurer involved in this claim. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the insurer's violation as the insured understands them are at this time: Barefoot Pelican Condominium Association (hereinafter the “insured”) purchased a condominium/commercial property insurance policy, policy number CRP 0000286-03 (hereinafter the “Subject Policy”) from Centauri Specialty Insurance Company (hereinafter “Centauri”, the “insurer”, or the “carrier”) which, at all times material hereto, provided property insurance for the well maintained luxury condominium property, consisting of two (2) main structures and appurtenances, located at 271 Southbay Dr., Naples, FL 34108 (hereinafter the “Subject Property”). On or about September 28, 2022, the Subject Property was damaged by the devastating effects of wind and wind related events, due to Hurricane Ian (“Ian” or the “hurricane”), which caused direct physical loss and resultant ensuing, progressive, and insidious damages to the Subject Property. After Ian subsided, the insured timely notified Centauri of the loss, and at all times fully cooperated with Centauri in providing information and documentation concerning the losses sustained. Thereafter, Centauri, by and through its designated claims adjusters, assigned claim number ICAT-2022-V-0000030002 to the losses (hereinafter the "claim") and assigned adjustment of the claim to others, including but not limited to several adjusters and those skilled in the art and pseudoscience of claim denial. Following what was falsely described to be a competent and fair investigation, Centauri opened coverage for the claims and unilaterally issued some payments under some unilaterally applied coverage(s), in woefully inadequate amounts. The Centauri payments ad offer was and is woefully inadequate and does not take into account the full scope of damage sustained to all purportedly covered aspects of the Subject Property and for such other amounts which the insureds are entitled to at law, in accordance with detailed estimates and supporting reports and documentation timely and fully supplied to Centauri. As should be obvious from the detailed estimates and supporting reports and documentation timely and fully supplied to Centauri, this carrier seriously and without legal justification, has undervalued these claims, and due to the delay in fairly evaluating these losses, the amounts incurred under all purported coverages, but that is of no matter to this carrier, which continues to unfairly delay the fair adjustment of these multiple claims. These actions are ongoing, have not been cured by Centauri despite many demands by the undersigned to do so. These actions, and other actions and inactions as shall appear during discovery in the further handling of these claims, individually and collectively serve as the epitome of bad faith. A fair and unbiased inspection and evaluation of the damage by unbiased professionals utilizing accurate data and information, would fairly and reasonably explain the obvious: that the Subject Property sustained damage far in excess of that amounts offered by Centauri, and that additional sums of money are due in connection with the other claims allowable under the Policy and the applicable Florida law. However, Centauri persists in the actual or de facto denial of the full scope of the claims. To summarize, and as will be obvious from an honest review of the matters asserted herein, all which can be reasonably ascertained to date was that Centauri and its loyal minions likely recognized this as a valid and fully covered large claim for which they did not want to pay, no matter what the facts, no matter what the law, no matter what the evidence, and no matter what the terms of the Policy fairly indicated. But it is certain that Centauri pays their “experts” and, indeed, Centauri pays them well, for results. This includes EFI Global, Inc. and CAT Forensic Services, LLC, the forensic damage evaluation firms used here. By its handling of this matter, it is obvious that Centauri expects the insured to run through the unfamiliar and frustrating gauntlet of the claim handling/adjustment process. Then, if the insured somehow survives, run through another frustrating and delaying process, the legal system gauntlet, which can be equally or even more frustrating. As appears from the evidence in this case, the insured was presented with unreasonable delays in the rightful adjustment of these claims and no sums of money commensurate with these purportedly covered losses. This was a serious lack of fair evaluation and an equal lack of full candor for all open and obvious losses, but this claim handling is wholly consistent with Centauri’s sordid pattern and practice of abandoning policyholders. Such abandonment occurs particularly in a time of great need, as here, as the property is now vulnerable to further damage due to the state of disrepair, for which the insureds are advised, they must now accept sole responsibility. The basis for these findings lies in poorly detailed inspections and “forensic” analysis by “go to” individuals, with “go to” hackneyed findings. This all takes place with little or no supporting objective evidence and data, by people with little or no experience in evaluating Florida claims, and most likely in unilaterally and broadly applying and/or misapplying Policy exclusions and/or amendments, similarly without reliable data and explanations, in a manner to solely benefit Centauri’s financial interests. Lack of details coupled with delay and a lack of a fair offer based upon an unfair evaluation by biased people, using skewed data employed by biased insurance carriers, results in a finding of insurance carrier bad faith. All available information leads to one conclusion – the Subject Property was badly damaged by a covered cause of loss, to wit: the wind effects from Ian, for which the insured is entitled to full and complete compensation, not a low-ball evaluation. To make matters worse, Centauri has made material misrepresentations to its insured regarding the scope and amount of their covered damages, for the purpose of and with the intent to settle the claim on less favorable terms than those provided for in the policy, quite clearly by severely undervaluing the actual amount of the covered losses. Centauri is acutely aware that the amount of the loss was in dispute but failed to make any real effort to fully and fairly adjust the loss and to appropriately indemnify the insured. The insured has been left with no choice but to hire an attorney in order to pursue the correct value of this claim. Based on the documentation previously submitted, and the coverage purportedly afforded, Centauri could have requested participation in alternative dispute resolution in line with the terms and conditions of the Subject Policy and governing Florida law or, at a minimum, engaged in fair and result oriented settlement negotiations with the insured in order to allow them to move on from this chapter and effectuate the necessary repairs to the Subject Property, or receive the fair value of the losses. But instead, Centauri chose to sit back and wait before this carrier ever thought to act in a manner inconsistent with their own self-interest, forcing the insured into hiring an attorney, thereby causing further delay and many out of pocket expenses to retain experts, and leaving less of the outstanding due and owing insurance proceeds. This delay in claims adjustment and manipulation of the evidence constitutes a pattern of open and obvious bad faith conduct. The insured has been left with no choice but to hire an attorney in order to file a notice of intent to initiate litigation subject to Fla. Stat. § 627.70152. Based on the documentation previously submitted, Centauri could have reversed its coverage position and afforded coverage in line with the terms and conditions of the Subject Policy and governing Florida law or, at a minimum, requested a further inspection in order to attempt to find coverage by viewing the circumstances in the light most favorable to the insured instead, Centauri chose to sit back and wait, forcing the insured into hiring an attorney, thereby coming further out of pocket and leaving less of the outstanding due and owing insurance proceeds for actual repairs. This delay in claims adjustment constitutes a pattern of de facto bad faith conduct. Through its actions/inactions and machinations, and expressly subject to the facts and circumstances understood at this time, as outlined herein, Centauri has violated the following sections of Florida Statutes: §624.155(1)(b)(1) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all circumstances, it could have and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insureds and with due regard. §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)(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 an act of God, prevented by the impossibility of performance, or due to actions by the insured or claimant that constitute fraud, lack of cooperation, or intentional misrepresentation regarding the claim for which benefits are owed. Additionally, through its actions/inactions, subject to the facts and circumstances understood at this time as outlined herein, Centauri has failed to comply with the following sections of the Florida Administrative Code: 69B-220.201(3)(b) An adjuster shall treat all claimants equally. 69B-220.201(3)(b)(2) An adjuster shall adjust all claims strictly in accordance with the insurance contract. 69B-220.201(3)(c) An adjuster shall not approach investigations, adjustments, and settlements in a manner prejudicial to the insured. 69B-220.201(3)(d) An adjuster shall make truthful and unbiased reports of the facts after making a complete investigation. 69B-220.201(3)(f) An adjuster, upon undertaking the handling of a claim, shall act with dispatch and due diligence in achieving a proper disposition of the claim. 69B-220.201(3)(k) An adjuster shall not undertake the adjustment of any claim concerning which the adjuster is not currently competent and knowledgeable as to the terms and conditions of the insurance coverage, or which otherwise exceeds the adjuster’s current expertise. As a direct result of Centauri’s actions and misconduct, the insured has sustained irreparable harm. Upon information and belief, the aforementioned actions complained of herein, among others, are effectuated by Centauri so often as not to be an aberration and so as to constitute a general business practice evidencing a motive to enhance Centauri’s profits and cause a detrimental effect on its policyholders. Centauri clearly failed to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigations of claims. As a direct and proximate result of the handling of the claim, the insured sustained extra-contractual damages, including, but not limited to multiple forensic and related expert fees, and ongoing attorneys’ fees and costs. Centauri implemented claims programs and practices that were improper which directly resulted in additional losses to its insured. Centauri, as part of its self- interested routine business pattern and practices, regularly and systematically employs outcome-oriented adjusters/vendors/experts who purposely looked for ways to minimize coverage instead of affording coverage to its policyholders. In contrast to the legislative intent which motivated the enumeration of an insurance adjuster’s responsibilities outlined in the Florida Administrative Code, the insured was not afforded the professional duties entrusted and imposed on Centauri by the Public Trust. The outcome-oriented claim adjustment practices undertaken by Centauri have led to the abject failure to adequately adjust the claim. This notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, should Centauri fail to cure the violations set forth in this Civil Remedy Notice within the given cure period. In order to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, Centauri must act as follows: immediately deliver payment of all insurance proceeds due and owing to the insured which would reasonably place the Subject Property back in its pre-loss condition or, alternatively, if appraisal is or has been requested, complete the appraisal process and deliver payment of the executed award and keep the claim open for the adjustment of any supplemental claim and payment of any as of yet un-incurred costs. If Centauri disagrees with the extent of the cure requested or asserts that the payment of any of the above cure categories may not be required, Centauri should cure to the extent it believes it must in accordance with the terms of the Subject Policy and governing laws to correct the allegations of bad faith contained herein. While it is not being requested as a cure for the bad faith alleged herein, the insured remains willing to entertain any reasonable counteroffer of settlement.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
sdc@kubickidraper.com 08-22-2025 Undersigned counsel and the law firm of Kubicki Draper represent CENTAURI SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY (“CENTAURI”) with regard to the above-referenced claim. This shall serve as CENTAURI’s response to the “Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations” (“CRN”), filed by or on behalf of “Complainant,” LAUREL BAREFOOT PELICAN CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, (hereinafter “Complainant” or “Insured”), with the Florida Department of Financial Services on June 26, 2025 with a filing number of 829238. The above-referenced claim was reported to CENTAURI by the Insured following an alleged loss on September 28, 2022 which they claimed caused property damage to the Insured premises. As a starting point, CENTAURI expressly reserves any and all defenses and objections that may be available whether herein or in any future lawsuit filed file for this claim. As the basis for filing the subject CRN against CENTAURI, Complainant asserts multiple allegations including but not limited to: claim delay, unsatisfactory settlement offers, unfair trade practices, and a violation of Adjuster’s Ethical Requirements. The CRN alleges that CENTAURI has violated multiple provisions of Fla. Stat. §§624.155 and 626.9541, and has otherwise violated Florida law in handling this claim. These allegations are categorically false. CENTAURI respectfully and categorically denies without limitation each and every allegation of Complainant within the CRN, including but not limited to the alleged violations of the cited provisions of Florida law. CENTAURI further denies any and all stated, implied, and/or unspecified allegations, including but not limited to denying any and all allegations of alleged improper claim handling, improper delay or denial, and the like, whether or not specifically alleged by Complainants’ CRN. CENTAURI has not violated any applicable provision of Florida law in the handling of this claim. Subject to and without waiving these denials and objections, CENTAURI states that it has not violated any applicable provision of Florida law in handling this claim or in any way related to this claim. Rather, CENTAURI has at all times acted in good faith, fairly, honestly and with reasonable diligence in its handling and investigation of the claim, including with regard to payments to be made with respect to the alleged losses or in any way related to this matter. CENTAURI also objects to the CRN based on multiple defects, which render the CRN invalid. For example, the CRN fails to comply with §624.155(3)(b)2. & (3)(b)4., Fla. Stat., which require the CRN to specify the relevant policy language at issue in the alleged violations. The CRN refers only to seven words found within the policy which states that “We will adjuster all losses with you.” This is a fragment of a provision, and CENTAURI cannot adequately assess what provisions of the policy form the basis for Complainant’s allegations if none are clearly articulated. The CRN is therefore invalid. CENTAURI further objects to the CRN, and the CRN is defective, additionally because it lacks sufficient (or any) specificity with regard to the alleged violations, which, again, is expressly required by §624.155(3)(b)2. The CRN’s allegations are repetitive, conclusory, altogether bereft of anything resembling a recitation of facts. The Complainant repeatedly describes CENTAURI as a biased, bottom-line-focused, nefarious company using all manner of inappropriate language. However, Complainant does nothing to explain how CENTAURI’s investigation and adjustment of the claim was allegedly deficient, except to conclude that each and every action taken by CENTAURI was done for nefarious and underhanded purposes, and/or for the purpose of delay. CENTAURI categorically denies that it acted for the purpose of delay or acted dishonestly or unfairly in any way towards the Insured. Centauri has afforded the properties in question multiple prompt inspections, and has paid the Insured a total of over $700,000 to date. Even after that, Centauri has made offers in excess of $1,000,000 to settle this claim. Conversely, the Complainant’s demand went up tenfold during the course of the pre-suit process. The original estimate presented by the Complainant’s public adjuster was for $1,273,329.70. The public adjuster was subsequently release from his representation of the Insured, whereafter the Complainant filed a Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation against CENTAURI demanding $10,456,362.00. Not only does this exceed all available coverage, Complainant has still never produced an estimate supporting such a number. Complainant has crafted a CRN with an illusory and invalid demand, which negates any meaningful ability to cure the alleged violations. While an estimated amount is mentioned, the cure provision is much more vague. Complainant demands that Centauri tender all due monies, and that the amount must be sufficient to bring the insured property back to pre-loss condition. This is clearly a purposeful vagueness for which CENTAURI would have to engage in a guessing game to correctly cure. Guess wrong, and Complainant potentially retains its right to punish Centauri, as the CRN purports to seek. This defect alone renders the CRN a legal nullity. In addition, Complainant is purportedly asserting that CENTAURI must essentially pay everything it would have to if it were ever actually found to have acted in bad faith. This is the antithesis of the purpose of a CRN. These types of purported cure provisions violate Florida law because Fla. Stat. §624.155 does not impose on an insurer the obligation to pay whatever the Insured or claimant demands. Rather, an insurer is only required to pay the contractual amount due under the Policy. Thus, any demand that CENTAURI must pay attorney’s fees or any other extra-contractual damages render the CRN invalid on its face and a legal nullity. Defects such as these thwart the fundamental purpose of the CRN, which is to give the insurer the opportunity to “cure” the alleged violations within the 60-day statutory period. This is contrary to the purpose and requirements of Florida law, including the notice and safe harbor or “cure” provisions of §624.155, Fla. Stat., which are a necessary prerequisite to any future bad faith action against CENTAURI. See, e.g., Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). Due to these defects, the CRN is invalid and cannot serve as a condition precedent to any action for alleged bad faith against CENTAURI under §624.155, Fla. Stat., or otherwise under Florida law. Subject to and without waiving these denials and objections, and subject to and without waiving any other available defenses, CENTAURI states that it has not violated any applicable provision of Florida law in handling this claim, in any way related to this claim, or in any litigation related to this claim. Rather, CENTAURI has at all times acted in good faith, fairly, honestly, and with reasonable diligence in its handling and investigation of the claim, including with regard to any payments and/or denials made with respect to the alleged losses or in any way related to this matter and in any litigation related to this claim. CENTAURI remains willing to review and consider any additional information which Complainant believes to be relevant to this matter and requests that any such additional information or documentation be provided immediately. CENTAURI will evaluate any additional information or documentation it receives in good faith. Accordingly CENTAURI objects to and denies the allegations of the CRN. The objections and denials herein are not necessarily exhaustive and this response shall not prevent CENTAURI from asserting any other appropriate objections, denials, and/or defenses related to this claim, CRN, and any future lawsuit filed for this claim. Moreover, due to the objections and defects discussed herein, the Department should strike and/or reject the CRN as invalid. As a final matter, it should be emphasized that the subject policy issued by CENTAURI is governed by the policy’s terms, conditions, and exclusions together with any endorsements. This CRN response does not waive any such provisions of the policy. Furthermore, any action taken by or on behalf of CENTAURI or its authorized representative(s), whether in the past or future, to investigate the alleged loss, to adjust any claim or request for payment, or in any way related to or arising out of the subject claim or loss, shall not waive any of the terms, conditions, or any other provisions of the policy. Thank you for your time and attention in this matter. Please contact us if you have any questions or require additional information. Stefanie D. Capps, Esq. David A. Frantz, 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