Mold: the denial record

Then in a letter dated October 5th, 2023 the carrier notified the Insured that it had completed its investigation into the loss and denied the claim.

Given the scope and nature of the damage, the Insured retained a public adjuster, obtained estimates for repairs, and prepared a Sworn Statement in Proof of Loss, dated August 6, 2020, showing $148,371.39 in damage after application of the policy deductible.

THE INSUREDS RETAINED THEIR OWN PROFESSIONALS, WHO DOCUMENTED THE LOSS, PHOTOGRAPHED, AND PREPARED A DETAILED ESTIMATES, QUOTES, AND INVOICES THAT AMOUNT TO $119,796.39 TO RESTORE THE DAMAGE AND RETURN THE INSURED PROPERTY TO ITS PRELOSS CONDITION.

This letter included an estimate and payment breakdown totaling $17,257.07.

The INSUREDS also incurred $9,523.68 of additional living expenses to vacate the property due to the presence of mold until the same could be remediated.

Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company ("carrier") has not attempted in good faith to settle the insureds' claim when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insureds and with due regard for their interests.

The Insured has obtained a rebuild estimate of $60,121.29 from National Restoration, and a mold remediation estimate of $9,713.18 from National Restoration.

Whereas, the carrier furnished a wrongful estimate and, having withheld the deductible, offered a deficient payment in the amount of $7,599.44 only, leaving a remainder in the amount of $34,287.08 to be paid in order to cure the breach, less any applicable policy deductible.

The insurer has presented no evidence or witnesses who can testify the presence of mold increased the loss by more than $6,005.76.

DryPro performed reasonable and necessary services in the amount of $2,266.24 for EMS and $8,966.39 for mold remediation.

At the same time, the Insureds through their representatives obtained an estimate for the necessary repairs related to the loss, and that estimate totaled $33,880.50.

The insured sent an estimate of damages, but Southern Oak has refused to do what is right and pay the claim.

In order to cureMONARCH NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY's continuous acts of bad faith,MONARCH NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY must issue payment for the invoicedamount of $ 24,169.08 and which has a current balance of $ 24,169.08; as well as, statutoryinterest.

In order to cure USAACASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY's continuous acts of bad faith, USAA CASUALTYINSURANCE COMPANY must issue payment for the invoiced amount of $ 21,997.14 andwhich has a current balance of $ 12,037.91; as well as, statutory interest.

To properly remediate the damage, Florida Elite removed the failed toilet, as well as the water-logged vanity and the saturated flooring and walls, together with the damaged portion of the garage ceiling.

The vendor and the insurer failed to advise that said inspection would include destructive testing which would cause additional damage to the insured's property.

However, when the Insurer conducted its inspection of the insured property, the Insurer's adjuster failed to conduct a thorough and adequate investigation, or the adjuster intentionally ignored the damage observed and failed to make truthful and unbiased reports of the facts after investigating.

Additionally, TRG Management has failed to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of this claim.

After completing its inspection, including review of the documents and information submitted by B2B, the Carrier denied the Claim.

The insurance company has failed and/or refused to thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigate and evaluate the claim of loss of its insured and has failed to pay for covered damages in breach of the insurance policy.

Carrier failed to take basic, obvious, industry-standard measures to determine if damage was present, such as the use of moisture meters, leak detection, thermal imaging, mold assessment, mold testing, or even the most basic "tap test." Complainant made the property available for inspection and for

The INSURED, through his public adjuster, has submitted a mold report, a mold estimate, and a competing rebuild estimate, by UNIVERSAL has ignored these submissions and has failed to respond to inquiries from the public adjuster about further adjusting the claim.