Condo and HOA: the denial record

The appraisal award called for $385,174.12 in recoverable depreciation which Frontline withheld even though in possession of documentation showing Insureds had already incurred those amounts.

Stellar inspected the property and found $329,842.89 worth of damages to the dwelling.

Specifically, the Insured submitted invoices, including $298,348.20 for [name redacted] to Navigators for reimbursement ("Reimbursement Claim").

SASI prepared a Xactimate estimate with an Actual Cash Value damage estimate in the amount of $166,388.62.

Despite all the above and the Insured promptly filing this claim and mitigating all damages in compliance with the Policy, the Insurer unreasonably took roughly three weeks to inspect the Property, and subsequently denied the Claim asserting that the damage was the result of rot and long term seepag

On July 31, 2023, USAA issued its' coverage decision and advised the Insureds that if the roof was replaced and documentation shown the depreciated value of $8,348.48 would be paid.

On October 7, 2024, American Builders Insurance Company / Association Insurance Company issued a claim denial based on two incorrect propositions, neither are supported by Florida Law: Reason #1.

Association Insurance Company and American Builders Insurance Company has denied the claim based on coverage reasons not supported by Florida Law.

Although Builders acknowledged receipt of the claim, for nearly two years, Builders has refused to issue a coverage determination as to [name redacted] 's tender of defense, nor has Builders provided [name redacted] with a defense in the Lawsuit.

Insurance coverages, policy declarations/copy, and determinations for coverage for July 10, 2024, date of loss were requested in writing on August 1, 2024.

On May 8, 2024, Arch sent a letter that again determined, with no actual information, that that property damage to the Association could not have occurred during the effective period of the Policy.

Currently, litigation is still pending against both [name redacted] Inc and [name redacted] LLC and Arch Specialty Insurance Company has failed to: respond to notices sent, provide requested copies of the insured coverage policy and failed to defend the insured as required by the policy.

In September 2023, AXIS responded and denied the claim. [name redacted] tendered its defense, again, to AXIS on March 15, 2024.

Notably, however, other excluded builders were given additional opportunities to sign the Insurers' version of the agreement, received warnings that it was their "last chance" to participate, and/or were told that the Insurers would resolve additional insured claims if it would incentivize the build

Given the facts outlined above, Evanston has failed or otherwise not attempted to meet the standard for good faith in this matter.

Roofers hired by the HOA failed to properly protect the roof during the process of replacing roofs on the block of units.

Although Clear Blue acknowledged receipt of the claim, for nearly two years, Clear Blue has refused to issue a coverage determination as to [name redacted] 's tenders of defense, nor has Clear Blue provided [name redacted] with a defense in the Lawsuit.

(To date, Clear Blue has failed to provide a coverage determination or a defense to [name redacted] in the Lawsuit).

For nearly two years, FCCI has refused to issue a coverage determination as to [name redacted] 's tender of defense, nor has FCCI provided [name redacted] with a defense in the Lawsuit.

By correspondence dated November 20, 2024, counsel for the owner of Unit 305 in the multi-story condominium contacted Frontline Insurance as the insurer for Unit 405.

Since that time over four years ago, Gemini has failed to issue a coverage decision nor has Gemini provided [name redacted] with a defense in the Lawsuit.

This civil remedy notice is being filed because GuideOne National Insurance Company ("GuideOne") has failed to address [name redacted] LLC's ("[name redacted] ") tenders of defense in good faith.

To date, Builders has failed to provide [name redacted] or CCG with a defense in the Lawsuit.

THE INSURANCE COMPANY HAS FAILED TO SATISFACTORILY SETTLE THIS CLAIM AND HAS DEPRIVED THE INSURED OF A PROPER RESOLUTION OF THIS CLAIM.

Dear Sir or Madam, This civil remedy notice pertains to Slide Insurance Company's failure to make a claim determination within 60 days of the claim being reported and its failure to acknowledge claim communication within 7 calendar days.

On October 21, 2024, [name redacted] wrote to Southern to dispute the denial but Southern has not reversed its decision.

The CRN contains generic and vague allegations without sufficiently specific facts.

Since that time, FSIC has refused to update its coverage determination as to [name redacted] 's tender of defense, nor has FSIC provided [name redacted] with a defense in the Lawsuit. [name redacted] wrote to FSIC again on October 21, 2024 to refute the denial, but FSIC has not issued any update.

The settlement agreement contained both monetary and non-monetary concessions.

Seven months later, on October 25, 2025, and after [name redacted] wrote to USIC to dispute the coverage denial, USIC advised the matter was "under review".

For nearly two years, USIC has refused to issue a coverage determination as to [name redacted] 's tender of defense, nor has USIC provided [name redacted] with a defense in the Lawsuit.

This civil remedy notice is being filed because United Specialty Insurance Company ("USIC") has failed to address [name redacted] LLC's ("[name redacted] ") tenders of defense in good faith.

This civil remedy notice is being filed because United Specialty Insurance Company ("USIC") has failed to address [name redacted] LLC's ("[name redacted] ") tenders of defense in good faith.

Alternatively, the insurer can pay the lump sum of $59,168.00 before this notice expires.

The Insured subsequently submitted estimates and photographic evidence to Universal to refute the initial denial of coverage and demonstrate the extent of the damage.

I respectfully challenge the denial conclusion and interpretation of the coverage for the following reasons: 1.