In Lugassy v. Utd. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 4D21-2929, 2022 WL 17171368, at*2 (Fla. 4th DCA Nov. 23, 2022) (STATED NOT FINAL), the Civil Remedy Notice at issue was held legally sufficient despite not stating a specific "cure amount" for the carrier to pay:
Here, the Homeowners’ CRN listed the specific statutory provisions that United allegedly violated, referenced the specific policy language relevant to the violations, and gave a detailed recitation of the facts surrounding the violation. In relevant part, the CRN stated United gave “a lowball estimate that failed to include the floors at all, and otherwise under-scoped such items as drywall repairs and paint” and ignored documentation showing that additional payments were owed. We hold the CRN sufficiently complied with section 624.155(3)(b)'s specificity requirements and “sufficiently put [United] on notice of the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violations and the corrective action required to remedy the violations.”
(The link in the above quote is to the 2022 version of Fla. Stat. § 624.155(3)(b) which is identical to the version cited in the Lugassy case.)
The trial court held in this case that a specific cure amount is required in the Civil Remedy Notice in Florida. The appellate court reversed in this case because a specific cure amount is definitely not required in a Civil Remedy Notice under the Florida "Bad-Faith" Statute. Lugassy, 2022 WL 17171368, at *3.
Please read the disclaimer. ©2022 Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved.
Comments