Kin: Ian damage attributed to age, thermal movement, and foot traffic

A Civil Remedy Notice is a formal complaint filed against an insurance company with Florida's Department of Financial Services. Filing one is the step Florida law requires before a policyholder can sue an insurer for bad faith. It is a public record, and the insurer gets 60 days to fix the problem before that right opens up.

So this is the policyholder's side of a dispute, written by their side, and it is an allegation rather than a finding. The insurer answered it, and its answer is published below alongside the complaint. Read both. Names, addresses, and policy and claim numbers have been removed here; everything else is quoted from the filing.

Kin Interinsurance Network (the "Insurer") has committed the following in handling the Insured's claim: 1) failing to act in due diligence and good faith to resolve claims; 2) placing the financial interest of Insurer before that of the Insured; 3) looking for ways to deny benefit payments and otherwise "low ball" or "stone wall" claims; 4) not adjusting the claims promptly and fairly; 5) not attempting in good faith to settle claims; 6) conducting inadequate investigations; 7) failing to employ policies and procedures to conduct adequate investigations; 8) shifting the burden of investigating the loss onto the Insureds; and 9) making material misrepresentations. On or about September 28, 2022, while the subject policy was in full force and effect, the insured property suffered a loss caused by Hurricane Ian. The areas impacted include but are not limited to the roofing system, exterior surfaces, bedroom, sunroom, garage, and office. The Insured timely submitted a claim to the Insurer for damages caused by Hurricane Ian and the ensuing damage therefrom. Thereafter, the Insurer assigned claim no. [redacted] to the loss and sent a field adjuster to inspect the property on August 21, 2023. Subsequently, in a coverage determination letter dated September 20, 2023, the Insurer notified the Insured that it was extending coverage for the loss. However, the Insurer wrongfully determined that it would only require $3,103.92 to restore the insured property to its pre-loss condition, which resulted in no payment being issued to the Insured as the amount of covered damage allegedly fell below the policy deductible. The Insurer's lowball estimate is that of a classic under scope and under value of the claim. The Insurer misrepresented the loss and issued a wrongful denial. The Insurer denied coverage for damage sustained to a portion of the dwelling based on the rationale that the damage sustained was a result of " age-related wear, thermal expansion/contraction, foot traffic, and installation/maintenance deficiencies damages." However, the Insurer never retained an engineer to ascertain the true cause of damage to the Insured's dwelling. Although the Insurer and Insured are in dispute about how the dwelling was damaged, the Insurer knows or should know that when independent perils converge and no single cause can be considered the sole or proximate cause, it is appropriate to apply the concurring cause doctrine. Sebo v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 208 So. 3d 694, 697 (Fla. 2016). The concurring cause doctrine states that coverage may exist where an insured risk constitutes a concurrent cause of the loss even when it is not the prime or efficient cause. Id. at 698. A covered peril that meets with an uncovered peril may still provide for coverage under a policy when the covered peril triggered the events that eventually led to the loss. Id. at 697. Given the vastly underestimated cost of repairs, the Insured's disagreement with the coverage decision, and the scope and nature of the damage, the Insured retained a roofing contractor. After assessing the damage and the true scope of repairs, the roofing contractor prepared an estimate identifying $84,462.09 in covered damage to the roof alone. The foregoing estimate and photographs were sent to the Insurer who has, to date, failed to fully indemnify the Insured for the loss. Upon receiving notice of the loss, the Insurer had the duty to provide the full benefits under the policy. This includes providing the Insured with a proper investigation and the funds necessary to return the home to its pre-loss condition. 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. As a result, the Insurer breached the policy by failing to fully indemnify the Insured for the covered loss. The Insurer failed to allocate and pay for overhead and profit, pursuant to Florida Statute 627.7011(3)(a). Where the Insureds are reasonably likely to need a general contractor for the repairs, Florida Statute 626.7011(3) does not permit an Insurer to withhold overhead and profit pending the actual repair, unless absent a showing by the Insureds that it was likely to need a general contractor for the repairs. Trinidad v. Fla. Peninsula ins. Co., 121 So. 3d 433, 435 (Fla. 2013). The Insurer has implemented policies and procedures that are designed to wrongfully withhold costs associated with restoring the insured property to its pre-loss condition. This is an underhanded attempt by the Insurer to place its financial interest above those of the Insured. Additionally, Insurer shifted the burden and cost of investigating and insuring the loss onto the Insured. During their investigation, the insurer's adjuster did not use a moisture meter, despite the presence of interior water damage. A moisture meter can be purchased online from Amazon for around $40 before tax. The Insurer could purchase a moisture meter and assess thousands of properties with one meter. Instead, the Insurer would rather place its financial interests over those of the Insured by failing to provide the adjuster with the necessary tools to correctly inspect the loss. As a result of the inadequate investigation and surrounding circumstances it is apparent that the Insurer significantly underestimated the scope of the loss to the Insured's property. The Insurer and its adjuster have colluded to misrepresent the true scope of damages to the insured property and the true replacement costs of the damages. The conduct outlined above is done within the Insurer's routine course of the business. There may be further wrongful conduct which has not been made known to the Insured at this moment. Certain conduct or actions may be discovered throughout discovery or cannot be verified without a review of the Insurer's claim file and standards and procedures for the adjustment and investigation of claims. In short, the Insurer is not acting with due regard for the Insured's interests or safety. In Florida the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. The Insurer has breached this trust and its duty to the Insured. The Insurer and its agents conducted cursory and inadequate investigations and wrongfully determined that it would only require $3,129.76 to restore the insured property to its pre-loss condition. Moreover, the Insurer has engaged in bad faith practices designed to delay claims and prevent the Insured from recovering what is rightfully owed under the subject policy of insurance. The Insurer's actions and inactions have continued to frustrate and delay the resolution of the Insured claim. The Insurer's actions amount to but are not limited to the following:

1. Claim delay

2. Not treating the Insured with good faith claims conduct

3. Looking for way to reduce recovery to the Insured

4. Looking for ways to deny recovery to the Insured

5. Not adjusting claims and evaluating loss properly, promptly and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to the Insured

6. Not training, supervising or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made, but rather placing the company's interests before the Insured's' interests

7. Placing the financial interest of the Insurer over that of the health and safety of the Insured

8. Shifting the burden of investigating onto the Insured

9. Conducting inadequate investigations 10. Making material misrepresentations Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this civil remedy notice, the Insurer must: (1). Admit full coverage for the Insured's loss. (2). Tender full benefits owed to the Insured under the insurance contract. A copy of this form submitted to the FDFS has been sent via e-mail to the following parties providing them notice of the filing of the civil remedy notice. Please e-mail any response to this civil remedy notice to [email redacted]. Via E-mail: Kin Interinsurance Network [address redacted]aza, Suite 228 Chicago, IL 60654 [email redacted]

(1). Admit full coverage for the Insured's loss. (2). Tender full benefits owed to the Insured under the insurance contract.

Florida DFS Civil Remedy Notice, filing number 794720. Read the filing on the state's site ↗

A Civil Remedy Notice records an allegation, not a finding. Nothing here has been decided by a court or by the Department. Not legal advice; consult an attorney about your specific claim.

Fla. DFS Civil Remedy Notice, Filing No. 794720 (Williams v. Kin Interinsurance), Brandon, FL · public record ↗

Quotes are verbatim from the cited public record. Case status and statute summaries drafted August 2026; verify against the current docket and statute. Not legal advice; consult an attorney about your specific claim.