Preview
Filing # 85977046 E-Filed 03/06/2019 03:49:18 PM.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
144 JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR BAY COUNTY, FLORIDA
HERMAN PETERSON and MARIE
PETERSON, Case No. 19000613CA
Plaintiff,
Vv.
PEOPLE’S TRUST INSURANCE| JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPANY,
Defendant.
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs, by and through undersigned counsel, submits this Complaint against
Defendant PEOPLE’S TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY. As their Complaint, Plaintiffs
assert and allege as follows:
Introduction
1. This action arises from the denial of insurance benefits. Plaintiffs made a
claim for damage from Hurricane Michael (claim # CFL18549156) under their policy with
Defendant (policy # PFL346828-02). Defendant admitted there was a covered loss from
Hurricane Michael and made a payment under the policy. Defendant, however, failed to
cover much of the damage caused by Hurricane Michael and failed to calculate properly
the amount of damage for the items it admitted were damaged.
2. Defendant’s refusal to cover all the damage caused by Hurricane Michael
violated its contractual duty. Moreover, its failure to fairly adjust the claim and cover
undisputed damage constitutes bad faith. Plaintiffs therefore bring this action to obtain thebenefits due under the insurance policy. The policy number is PFL346828-02. A complete
copy of the policy is within Defendant’s possession.
Parties and Jurisdiction
3. Plaintiffs are a natural persons and residents of this County.
4. Defendant is an insurance company with its principal place of business in
Deerfield Beach, Florida. Defendant has engaged in business in this County by issuing
insurance policies and adjusting claims.
5. The amount at issue in this case is in excess of $15,000.00, exclusive of
interest, attorneys’ fees and costs.
6. Venue is proper in this Circuit because the conduct at issue occurred in this
County and Defendant is present in this Circuit through its business activities.
Factual Allegations
7. Pursuant to a policy numbered PFL346828-02, Defendant insured Plaintiff
against loss to their residence and property, including loss from windstorm.
8. On October 10, 2018, Hurricane Michael struck Gulf County and caused
extensive damage to Plaintiffs’ residence and property.
9. Plaintiffs made a claim under the insurance policy for the damage from
Hurricane Michael.
10. Defendant admitted coverage for the event and made a partial payment.
Defendant, however, denied coverage for significant damage caused by the storm.
Defendant further underpaid for the damage that it admitted was covered by improperly
calculating actual cash value of the property damage.
Causes of ActionCOUNTI
BREACH OF INSURANCE CONTRACT
11. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-2 and 7-through-10 above,
as if alleged in this Count.
12. Plaintiffs and Defendant entered into a valid and enforceable insurance
contract.
13. Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for much
Plaintiffs’ above-referenced claim, which was a covered peril not subject to any exclusion.
Defendant further breached the insurance contract by improperly calculating the actual
cash value of the damage that it admitted was covered.
14. Plaintiffs complied with their obligations under the insurance contract.
15. Plaintiffs have been injured and suffered financial harm as a result of
Defendant’s breach of the insurance contract.
COUNT II
STATUTORY BAD FAITH CLAIM PURSUANT TO FLA. STAT. SEC. 624.155
16. Plaintiffs adopt and reallege paragraphs 1 through 15, as fully alleged
herein.
17. Pursuant to Fla. Stat. Sec. 624.155, the Plaintiff has a statutory cause of
action for bad faith due to the Defendant's general business practice of willful, wanton,
immoral, unlawful, malicious and/or deceptive claims handling practices (misconduct
collectively referred to as "Bad Faith").
18. The exhaustively stated basis for which this action is predicated is set forth
in the civil remedies notice (CRN) which is attached hereto, incorporated by reference, and
identified as Exhibit "A."19. Including its subparts, the CRN comports with the condition precedent set
forth under Fla. Stat. Sec. 624.155(3).
20. | The CRN was duly filed with the Florida Department of Financial Services,
and was served upon the insurer by way of, inter alia, service of this Complaint.
21. Per governing law this action is subject to abatement until such time as the
sixty (60) day notice requirement for the CRN expires and liability is adjudicated and/or
confessed in the Plaintiffs favor as it relates to the claim(s) for relief per Count I and/or IT
of this Complaint.
22. However, and for the reasons stated in the CRN, Plaintiffs are entitled to
punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, extra-contractual damages, and costs once the referenced
conditions have been qualified and the abatement has been lifted. Allstate Ins. Co., v. Lovell, 530
So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Schimmel v. Aetna Casualty & Sur. Co., 506 2d. 1162 (Fla. 3d
DCA 1987).
Prayer for Relief
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that after a trial on the merits, the Court award
them:
A. A judgment declaring Defendant in breach of the insurance contract for denying
his claim;
B. A judgment awarding Plaintiffs compensatory damages for Defendant’s denial
of the claim;
C. A judgment awarding Plaintiffs attorney’s fees pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 627.428;
D. A judgment awarding Plaintiffs pre-judgment interest pursuant to Fla. Stat. §
627.70131.
E. A judgment awarding Plaintiffs post-judgment interest; andF. Such other relief that that Court deems proper.
Jury Demand
Plaintiffs demand a jury trial on all issues to which they are so entitled.
Respectfully submitted this 6th day of March 2018
/s/ Matthew D, Landau
Matthew D. Landau
Fla. Bar. No. 445967
Eric Fischer
Fla. Bar. No. 962422
Paul Kunz
Fla. Bar. No. 159492
THE LANDAU LAW GROUP, P.A.
1200 North Federal Highway, Ste. 200
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Phone: (954) 964-0900
matt@thelandaulawgroup.com
/s/ Clayton B. Studstill
Clayton B. Studstill
Fla. Bar. No. 17088
THE STUDSTILL LAW FIRM, PLLC
326 Reid Ave
Port St Joe, FL 32456-1826
United States
Office: 850-229-8800
Fax: 850-229-8808
clayton@thestudstilllawfirm.com
Co-Counsel for PlaintiffsExhibit Amy FLORIDA
mi) FINANCIAL SERVICES
Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Filing Number: 425769
Filing Accepted: 3/6/2019
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.
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.
Complainant
Name: HERMAN AND MARIE PETERSON
Street Address: 411 NEW MEXICO DRIVE
City, State Zip: MEXICO BEACH, FL 32456
Email Address:
Complainant Type: Insured
Name: HERMAN AND MARIE PETERSON
Policy #: PFL346828-01
Claim #: CFL18549156
Name: PAUL KUNZ
Street Address: 321 NE 59TH TERRACE
City, State Zip: MIAMI, FL 33137
Email Address: PAUL@BANDERVISA.COM
ATS
Insurer Type: Authorized Insurer
Name: PEOPLE'S TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY
Street Address:
City, State Zip: :
Please identify the person or persons representing the insurer who are most responsible for/knowledgeable of the
facts giving rise to the allegations in this notice.
Type of Insurance: Residential Property & Casualty
DFS-10-363
Rev. 11/2007mv FLORIDA
mi) FINANCIAL SERVICES
Filing Number: 425769
Reason for Notice
Reasons for Notice:
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Unfair Trade Practice
PURSUANT TO SECTION 624.155, F.S. please indicate all statutory provisions alleged to have been violated.
624.155(1)(b)(1) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances,
it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its
insured and with due regard for her or his interests.
624.155(1)(b)(3) Except as to liability coverages, failing to promptly settle claims, when the
obligation to settle a claim has become reasonably clear, under one portion of
the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other
portions of the insurance policy coverage.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of
claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) | Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon
available information.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f) | Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured
of the basis in the insurance policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law,
for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement.
Reference to specific policy language that is relevant to the violation, if any. If the person bringing the civil action is a
third party claimant, she or he shall not be required to reference the specific policy language if the authorized insurer
has not provided a copy of the policy to the third party claimant pursuant to written request.
698-220.201(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)(e) An adjuster shall handle every adjustment and settlement with honesty and integrity and
allow a fair adjustment or settlement to all parties without any remuneration to himself except that to which
he is legally entitled
69B-220.201 (3)(m) An adjuster shall not knowingly fail to advise a claimant of the claimant’s rights in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract and of the applicable laws of this state. And
adjuster shall exercise care not to engage in the unlicensed practice of law as prescribed by the Florida Bar.
698-220(3)(0) 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 or the matter as you understand at the time.
To enable the insurer to investigate and resolve your claim, describe the facts and circumstances giving rise to the
insurer's violation as you understand them at this time.
DFS-10-363
Rev. 11/2007The Insured/Complainant submitted a Hurricane Michael claim to People’s Trust Insurance Company
(“Insurance Company”) for benefits pursuant to a sudden and accidental loss/and or damages arising out
of Hurricane Michael.
Insurance Company has unlawfully, immorally, unfairly, deceptively and/or in bad faith pursuant to the
above-stated legal authorities that govern the insurance policy (“Policy”), adopted and implemented a
general business practice of misconstruing the Policy for their own financial gain.
More specifically, and although Insurance Company knows that it has a fiduciary duty to duly and promptly
investigate, adjust, pay and/or settle claims in strict accordance with the Policy, they have willfully,
wantonly, contumaciously and/or recklessly disregarded the rights of the Complainant as further outlined
below.
1. Failing to set forth specific and substantive facts and/or data upon which Insurance Company is relying
upon in order to not fully perform their duties
2. Insurance Company has failed to locate original contractors and/or vendors to properly identify materials,
and/or provide a full scope of the damages — specifically: they have failed to sufficiently identify original
building materials, attempt to match and/or replace said materials so as to return the damaged areas to its
pre-loss condition. They have also specifically failed to acknowledge that said replacement will require
additional rebuild services stemming from the proper scope of the damages including, but not limited to,
repainting and refinishing affected and adjacent areas, repairing and replacing structural and aesthetic
aspects of all damaged areas, as well as any other related areas.
3. Not utilizing, and/or applying, reliable principals and methods as it relates to extending full coverage for a
claim once sufficient facts and/or data are gathered in relation to same, including failing to utilize proper
rebuilding cost in its damage assessment and failing to provide adequately for all covered losses.
4. Failing to consider and apply Florida’s Valued Policy Law, Fla. Stat. § 627.702, or otherwise failing to pay
the maximum amount of the loss caused by the covered peril.
5. Not promptly and/or fully, and per known facts justifying same, issuing payment and/or a coverage
decision once the initial adjustment and or investigation is completed.
6. Failing to retain personnel and/or implement policies, procedures and guidelines, which allow for a
proper evidentiary basis to dispute coverage, and/or reasonableness, necessity and /or relatedness of the
losses submitted by the Complainant.
7. Categorizing insureds based on whether they are represented or pursuing legal action, and only then,
accepting their duty to perform under the Policy in a form that does not allow all insureds to be treated
equally.
8. Asserting arbitrary, capricious and/or otherwise unsubstantiated positions to dispute the reasonableness
and/or scope of the Complainants losses, including misclassification of damage as flood damage rather
than windstorm.
9. Taking inconsistent, arbitrary, capricious or otherwise unjustified positions regarding payment
limitations under the Coverages provided under the Policy, even though they know that the losses are
compensable under Coverage A.
10. Insurance Company knows that the usual and customary reimbursement charges in the community
specifically with respect to community post-hurricane Michael, as well as the usual and customary
reimbursement rates in the community post-hurricane Michael for remediation services in question, support
a finding that the subject service charges are reasonable. Yet they repeatedly fail to acknowledge same, and
has forced the Complainant in relation to historic, present, and prospective claims, to be repeatedly left in
doubt in relation to same. This causes substantial undue and unjust delay, and the repeated need to retain
counsel to protect the Complainant’s legal rights.
11. The Complainant suffers consequential damages as a result of the stated misconduct herein, including
but not limited to inability to use funds owed to effectuate necessary repairs.
User Id Date Added Comment
DFS-10-363
Rev. 11/2007
Preview
Filing # 85977046 E-Filed 03/06/2019 03:49:18 PM. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 144 JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BAY COUNTY, FLORIDA HERMAN PETERSON and MARIE PETERSON, Case No. 19000613CA Plaintiff, Vv. PEOPLE’S TRUST INSURANCE| JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPANY, Defendant. COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, by and through undersigned counsel, submits this Complaint against Defendant PEOPLE’S TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY. As their Complaint, Plaintiffs assert and allege as follows: Introduction 1. This action arises from the denial of insurance benefits. Plaintiffs made a claim for damage from Hurricane Michael (claim # CFL18549156) under their policy with Defendant (policy # PFL346828-02). Defendant admitted there was a covered loss from Hurricane Michael and made a payment under the policy. Defendant, however, failed to cover much of the damage caused by Hurricane Michael and failed to calculate properly the amount of damage for the items it admitted were damaged. 2. Defendant’s refusal to cover all the damage caused by Hurricane Michael violated its contractual duty. Moreover, its failure to fairly adjust the claim and cover undisputed damage constitutes bad faith. Plaintiffs therefore bring this action to obtain thebenefits due under the insurance policy. The policy number is PFL346828-02. A complete copy of the policy is within Defendant’s possession. Parties and Jurisdiction 3. Plaintiffs are a natural persons and residents of this County. 4. Defendant is an insurance company with its principal place of business in Deerfield Beach, Florida. Defendant has engaged in business in this County by issuing insurance policies and adjusting claims. 5. The amount at issue in this case is in excess of $15,000.00, exclusive of interest, attorneys’ fees and costs. 6. Venue is proper in this Circuit because the conduct at issue occurred in this County and Defendant is present in this Circuit through its business activities. Factual Allegations 7. Pursuant to a policy numbered PFL346828-02, Defendant insured Plaintiff against loss to their residence and property, including loss from windstorm. 8. On October 10, 2018, Hurricane Michael struck Gulf County and caused extensive damage to Plaintiffs’ residence and property. 9. Plaintiffs made a claim under the insurance policy for the damage from Hurricane Michael. 10. Defendant admitted coverage for the event and made a partial payment. Defendant, however, denied coverage for significant damage caused by the storm. Defendant further underpaid for the damage that it admitted was covered by improperly calculating actual cash value of the property damage. Causes of ActionCOUNTI BREACH OF INSURANCE CONTRACT 11. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-2 and 7-through-10 above, as if alleged in this Count. 12. Plaintiffs and Defendant entered into a valid and enforceable insurance contract. 13. Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for much Plaintiffs’ above-referenced claim, which was a covered peril not subject to any exclusion. Defendant further breached the insurance contract by improperly calculating the actual cash value of the damage that it admitted was covered. 14. Plaintiffs complied with their obligations under the insurance contract. 15. Plaintiffs have been injured and suffered financial harm as a result of Defendant’s breach of the insurance contract. COUNT II STATUTORY BAD FAITH CLAIM PURSUANT TO FLA. STAT. SEC. 624.155 16. Plaintiffs adopt and reallege paragraphs 1 through 15, as fully alleged herein. 17. Pursuant to Fla. Stat. Sec. 624.155, the Plaintiff has a statutory cause of action for bad faith due to the Defendant's general business practice of willful, wanton, immoral, unlawful, malicious and/or deceptive claims handling practices (misconduct collectively referred to as "Bad Faith"). 18. The exhaustively stated basis for which this action is predicated is set forth in the civil remedies notice (CRN) which is attached hereto, incorporated by reference, and identified as Exhibit "A."19. Including its subparts, the CRN comports with the condition precedent set forth under Fla. Stat. Sec. 624.155(3). 20. | The CRN was duly filed with the Florida Department of Financial Services, and was served upon the insurer by way of, inter alia, service of this Complaint. 21. Per governing law this action is subject to abatement until such time as the sixty (60) day notice requirement for the CRN expires and liability is adjudicated and/or confessed in the Plaintiffs favor as it relates to the claim(s) for relief per Count I and/or IT of this Complaint. 22. However, and for the reasons stated in the CRN, Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, extra-contractual damages, and costs once the referenced conditions have been qualified and the abatement has been lifted. Allstate Ins. Co., v. Lovell, 530 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Schimmel v. Aetna Casualty & Sur. Co., 506 2d. 1162 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Prayer for Relief WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that after a trial on the merits, the Court award them: A. A judgment declaring Defendant in breach of the insurance contract for denying his claim; B. A judgment awarding Plaintiffs compensatory damages for Defendant’s denial of the claim; C. A judgment awarding Plaintiffs attorney’s fees pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 627.428; D. A judgment awarding Plaintiffs pre-judgment interest pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 627.70131. E. A judgment awarding Plaintiffs post-judgment interest; andF. Such other relief that that Court deems proper. Jury Demand Plaintiffs demand a jury trial on all issues to which they are so entitled. Respectfully submitted this 6th day of March 2018 /s/ Matthew D, Landau Matthew D. Landau Fla. Bar. No. 445967 Eric Fischer Fla. Bar. No. 962422 Paul Kunz Fla. Bar. No. 159492 THE LANDAU LAW GROUP, P.A. 1200 North Federal Highway, Ste. 200 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: (954) 964-0900 matt@thelandaulawgroup.com /s/ Clayton B. Studstill Clayton B. Studstill Fla. Bar. No. 17088 THE STUDSTILL LAW FIRM, PLLC 326 Reid Ave Port St Joe, FL 32456-1826 United States Office: 850-229-8800 Fax: 850-229-8808 clayton@thestudstilllawfirm.com Co-Counsel for PlaintiffsExhibit Amy FLORIDA mi) FINANCIAL SERVICES Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations Filing Number: 425769 Filing Accepted: 3/6/2019 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. 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. Complainant Name: HERMAN AND MARIE PETERSON Street Address: 411 NEW MEXICO DRIVE City, State Zip: MEXICO BEACH, FL 32456 Email Address: Complainant Type: Insured Name: HERMAN AND MARIE PETERSON Policy #: PFL346828-01 Claim #: CFL18549156 Name: PAUL KUNZ Street Address: 321 NE 59TH TERRACE City, State Zip: MIAMI, FL 33137 Email Address: PAUL@BANDERVISA.COM ATS Insurer Type: Authorized Insurer Name: PEOPLE'S TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY Street Address: City, State Zip: : Please identify the person or persons representing the insurer who are most responsible for/knowledgeable of the facts giving rise to the allegations in this notice. Type of Insurance: Residential Property & Casualty DFS-10-363 Rev. 11/2007mv FLORIDA mi) FINANCIAL SERVICES Filing Number: 425769 Reason for Notice Reasons for Notice: Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer Unfair Trade Practice PURSUANT TO SECTION 624.155, F.S. please indicate all statutory provisions alleged to have been violated. 624.155(1)(b)(1) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests. 624.155(1)(b)(3) Except as to liability coverages, failing to promptly settle claims, when the obligation to settle a claim has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) | Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f) | Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of the basis in the insurance policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement. Reference to specific policy language that is relevant to the violation, if any. If the person bringing the civil action is a third party claimant, she or he shall not be required to reference the specific policy language if the authorized insurer has not provided a copy of the policy to the third party claimant pursuant to written request. 698-220.201(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)(e) An adjuster shall handle every adjustment and settlement with honesty and integrity and allow a fair adjustment or settlement to all parties without any remuneration to himself except that to which he is legally entitled 69B-220.201 (3)(m) An adjuster shall not knowingly fail to advise a claimant of the claimant’s rights in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract and of the applicable laws of this state. And adjuster shall exercise care not to engage in the unlicensed practice of law as prescribed by the Florida Bar. 698-220(3)(0) 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 or the matter as you understand at the time. To enable the insurer to investigate and resolve your claim, describe the facts and circumstances giving rise to the insurer's violation as you understand them at this time. DFS-10-363 Rev. 11/2007The Insured/Complainant submitted a Hurricane Michael claim to People’s Trust Insurance Company (“Insurance Company”) for benefits pursuant to a sudden and accidental loss/and or damages arising out of Hurricane Michael. Insurance Company has unlawfully, immorally, unfairly, deceptively and/or in bad faith pursuant to the above-stated legal authorities that govern the insurance policy (“Policy”), adopted and implemented a general business practice of misconstruing the Policy for their own financial gain. More specifically, and although Insurance Company knows that it has a fiduciary duty to duly and promptly investigate, adjust, pay and/or settle claims in strict accordance with the Policy, they have willfully, wantonly, contumaciously and/or recklessly disregarded the rights of the Complainant as further outlined below. 1. Failing to set forth specific and substantive facts and/or data upon which Insurance Company is relying upon in order to not fully perform their duties 2. Insurance Company has failed to locate original contractors and/or vendors to properly identify materials, and/or provide a full scope of the damages — specifically: they have failed to sufficiently identify original building materials, attempt to match and/or replace said materials so as to return the damaged areas to its pre-loss condition. They have also specifically failed to acknowledge that said replacement will require additional rebuild services stemming from the proper scope of the damages including, but not limited to, repainting and refinishing affected and adjacent areas, repairing and replacing structural and aesthetic aspects of all damaged areas, as well as any other related areas. 3. Not utilizing, and/or applying, reliable principals and methods as it relates to extending full coverage for a claim once sufficient facts and/or data are gathered in relation to same, including failing to utilize proper rebuilding cost in its damage assessment and failing to provide adequately for all covered losses. 4. Failing to consider and apply Florida’s Valued Policy Law, Fla. Stat. § 627.702, or otherwise failing to pay the maximum amount of the loss caused by the covered peril. 5. Not promptly and/or fully, and per known facts justifying same, issuing payment and/or a coverage decision once the initial adjustment and or investigation is completed. 6. Failing to retain personnel and/or implement policies, procedures and guidelines, which allow for a proper evidentiary basis to dispute coverage, and/or reasonableness, necessity and /or relatedness of the losses submitted by the Complainant. 7. Categorizing insureds based on whether they are represented or pursuing legal action, and only then, accepting their duty to perform under the Policy in a form that does not allow all insureds to be treated equally. 8. Asserting arbitrary, capricious and/or otherwise unsubstantiated positions to dispute the reasonableness and/or scope of the Complainants losses, including misclassification of damage as flood damage rather than windstorm. 9. Taking inconsistent, arbitrary, capricious or otherwise unjustified positions regarding payment limitations under the Coverages provided under the Policy, even though they know that the losses are compensable under Coverage A. 10. Insurance Company knows that the usual and customary reimbursement charges in the community specifically with respect to community post-hurricane Michael, as well as the usual and customary reimbursement rates in the community post-hurricane Michael for remediation services in question, support a finding that the subject service charges are reasonable. Yet they repeatedly fail to acknowledge same, and has forced the Complainant in relation to historic, present, and prospective claims, to be repeatedly left in doubt in relation to same. This causes substantial undue and unjust delay, and the repeated need to retain counsel to protect the Complainant’s legal rights. 11. The Complainant suffers consequential damages as a result of the stated misconduct herein, including but not limited to inability to use funds owed to effectuate necessary repairs. User Id Date Added Comment DFS-10-363 Rev. 11/2007