Vyrd: a $207,591 claim backed by a retained engineer

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.

Vyrd Insurance Company 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 the Carrier 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. Failing to provide an estimate that complies with the Florida Building Codes.

9. Shifting the burden of investigating the loss onto the Insured. 10. Misrepresenting the terms of the insurance policy. [name redacted] are homeowner's with an all-risks insurance policy issued by Vyrd Insurance Company (hereinafter "Carrier"),. On or about July, 12th,2024, while the policy was in full force and effect, the Insured's property located at [address redacted] Odessa, FL, sustained significant damage as a result of water leak. The insured promptly reported the claim and fully cooperated with the carrier's investigation. The Carrier assigned claim no. [redacted] to the loss. The carrier utilizes FKS Insurance as a third party claims administrator. After reporting the claim, Carrier retained an unqualified and biased field adjuster, [name redacted] to adjust the loss. The carrier also retained [name redacted] as the desk adjuster. [name redacted] work for FKS Insurance on behalf of Vyrd Insurance Company. The adjusters and FKS Insurance, had a financial incentive to adjust the loss in a manner that would minimize Vyrd Insurance Company's losses. Instead of adjusting the claim fairly, honestly, in good faith, and with due regard for the Insured's interest, the adjuster made a conscious effort to ignore evidence of covered losses to the property and direct physical damage. On or about July 12th, 2024 the [name redacted] 's suffered a major water loss from a failed washing machine on the 2nd floor of their primary residence. They immediately called a local restoration company "DryOps" to mitigate damages and immediately reported the claim. The loss originated in the laundry room located in the 2nd floor of the residence where the washing machine is located. The subject washing machine is approximately 2 years old and was purchased brand new & professionally installed through Costco who sold them the appliance. Vyrd assigned [name redacted] to inspect the loss. On July 13th, [address redacted]yOps sent a email to Vyrd Insurance company and stated the following: Dear Claims Department, I am writing on behalf of DryOPS LLC to formally request to exceed the caps and limitations for emergency services, specifically for water mitigation, restoration, and remediation services. Due to a Category 2 water intrusion, we need to remove baseboards, trim, and vinyl plank flooring, and use drying equipment and strategies immediately to prevent secondary damage. The Insured has been informed of the situation. Attached is our agreement with the homeowner, including "Direction to Pay" (Section 3.f.) and "Letter of Protection" (Section 5.a.). The current situation involves a significant Category 2 water loss caused by a washing machine failure, requiring urgent water mitigation per the ANSI/IICRC S500-[address redacted]andard for Professional Water Damage Restoration. Essential equipment has already been deployed, and mitigation procedures are in progress. We request confirmation that coverage for this situation is allowable and can extend beyond the standard limitations. We will provide continuous updates per your requests and upload images to the designated link below throughout the project. For further clarification or inquiries, please contact me via phone or email. Please direct all future email correspondence regarding this claim to [email redacted]. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. https://dryops.com/claims/12011/ Claim # 12011 Policy no. [redacted] Regards, [name redacted] Manager [phone redacted] -- This was the first time Vyrd was notified that we were requesting to exceed any and all caps related to water mitigation, mold remediation etc, in order to prevent further damage to the property. [name redacted] then emailed Vyrd again to confirm receipt of the email and asked when a inspection will be occurring. On July 15th, 2024 [name redacted] again left a voicemail and sent a email asking when the property will be inspected as the contractor is going to begin removing the wet flooring. On July 16th, [address redacted]yOps sent the following email to Vyrd: Good morning, It was nice speaking with you yesterday about the [name redacted] claim. I just want to confirm that I have the correct email address and to reiterate that, based on our discussion, EMS coverage has been extended. We will be providing you with the photo documentation and dry logs upon completion of the EMS process. Today, we are moving forward with removing the vinyl plank flooring due to water migrating under it because of capillary action. We will document the process as we go. The removed flooring will be kept onsite for the field adjuster to inspect. On the surface we estimate that approximately [address redacted]uare feet of wet flooring will be removed. The removal is scheduled to begin today at 11am. If there are any concerns or if you wish for us not to proceed please contact us before 11am in response to this email, please email me directly at [email redacted]. Thank you. Regards, [name redacted] In response to this email, [name redacted] on behalf of Vyrd advised to cotniue with reasonable and necessary mitigation measures. On or about July 17th, 2024, [name redacted] inspected the property. Mike did not have a moisture meter or thermal imaging camera with him. DryOps was also present and explained the scope of the damages. Also on July 17th, 2024, [name redacted] advised Vyrd that the warranty repair company for the washing machine will be inspecting on July 22nd, 2024. [name redacted] asked for more information about the washing machine which [name redacted] emailed the original order from Costco dated April 13th, 2022, photo of the washing machine label with serial number, and warranty info. On July 19th, we advised that the warranty repair guy had a cancellation and inspected the house on July 19th. [name redacted] sent Vyrd a copy of the service work order. DryOps noticed signs of microbial growth and The [name redacted] 's retained Rogina, LLC for a mold assessment. On July 21st, 2024 [name redacted] submitted the Rogina, LLC Invoice, protocol, photos and air quality results. [name redacted] also advised that the house is no longer fit to live as he has 3 small children, two who were born premature, and needed to secure a different place to live in order to maintain his standard of living. He provided Vyrd with incurred costs of the deductible which was paid to DryOps in the amount of $2500, $1050 to Rogina, LLC, and $6,690.09 for a AIRBNB Rental. On July 24th, 2024 [name redacted] Advised the field adjuster report was received. On August 1st, 2024, [name redacted] advised it was over a week since Vyrd had received the field adjuster estimate yet it was not disclosed. [name redacted] then sent a copy of the estimate on August, 1st, 2024. Vryd asked for more photos showing 10sq ft of mold despite being provided a copy to link with photos and photos taken my the mold assessor. Vyrd advised a coverage determination would be made next week. Vyrd then asked us to retain the damaged part, and the insured advised that it has not been removed and the warranty repair company would be coming to the house again on August 13th, 2024 to repair the washing machine. Then in a email and letter dated August 8th, 2024 Vyrd issued a initial payment partial denial letter and estimate. There were numerous issues with what was provided by Vyrd. For example, Vyrd incorrectly stated we never requested to exceed the cap for mold testing yet DryOps already sent a email with their work authorization where they requested to exceed caps related to mitigation. Mold testing is part of mitigation and reasonable repairs used to prevent further damage to the property. Worse, the estimate prepared by Vyrd does not conform with Industry standards and did not account for direct physical loss to the property. There was not [address redacted]uare foot of allowance for Drywall despite the severe water damage to the property. Further, the [name redacted] where the loss occurred was absent from Vyrd's estimate, along with the hallway bathroom and Fireplace. Also, Vyrd incorrectly included certain areas under the "[name redacted] Property" provision despite the flooring being continuous. Despite being placed on notice on July 21st, 2024 that the house was not habitable, Vyrd FAILED to pay any money for additional living expenses that were incurred. Vyrd also applied the amount of limit towards the deductible but did not reimburse The [name redacted] 's for the deductible that was already paid to DryOps despite being placed on notice that the deductible was already paid. On August 9th, 2024, DryOps sent final invoices for all completed work totaling $55,820.05 along with supporting documentation and photographs. On August 13th, 2024 [name redacted] again followed up with Vyrd regarding the missing items from Vyrd's Estimate and ALE payments. Also, requested what is the status of the DryOps invoices being paid as we do not want a lien on our house. He also sent the work order from the warranty repair company and asked where to mail the damaged part. On August 14th, 2024, nearly 1 month since incurred ALE invoices were submitted, [name redacted] asked again on the status of payments. On August 19th, 2024, [name redacted] again submitted additional ALE invoices which were incurred. [name redacted] then again reached out as Vyrd continued to ignore and delay our requests for reimbursement which started on July 21, 2024. Given the vastly underestimated cost of repairs, the Insured's disagreement with the coverage decision, and the scope and nature of the damage resulting from the loss, the delays in payments for incurred costs, the Insured disputed the coverage determination and submitted a sworn statement in proof of loss for $207,591.39 which was a fair and reasonable assessment of the loss and included incurred ALE expenses to date. The [name redacted] 's retained the services of [name redacted] Consultants, LLC who is a licensed contractor to provide a estimate of the damages which totaled $130,804.[address redacted]orage of personal property. DryOps submitted to final invoices for repairs made that were $42,610.26 and $13,209.79 for mold. Also submitted was a initial mold assessment invoice for $1,050.00 and clearance testing for $1030.00 from Rogina, LLC which were paid. Also, submitted was two incurred invoices for additional living expenses from AirBNB for $6,690.01 and $12,103.72. Lastly, a laundry invoice from [name redacted] for $92.84. On August 22, 2024 Vyrd acknowledged the sworn proof of loss and issued payment for part of the AirBNB invoice, storage for 1 month, u-haul, and happy nest laundry. Vryd FAILED to pay the other ALE invoice timely despite it being incurred. Vyrd continued to delay the claim by stating the 2nd AirBnB receipt needs to be itemized with a price breakdown of the entire amount. This is not required by the policy but in good faith on August 24th, 2024, we sent all screenshots we could from the AirBNB app. On August 29th, 2024 again The [name redacted] 's followed up with Vyrd on the status of the 2nd ALE payment, and wanting a claim update. Vyrd advised us to hold off on any work due to the differences in scope which included missing drywall, the fireplace, and several rooms that were omitted from the field adjuster estimate and followed up on status of EMS payments. On August 29th, 2024, 10 days after the sworn proof of loss was submitted, Vyrd advised us that he requested the property to be reinspected. This was done to further delay the claim and in violation of FL Stat. 627.70131 (3)(a) which states "Unless otherwise provided by the policy of insurance or by law, within 7 days after an insurer receives proof-of-loss statements, the insurer shall begin such investigation as is reasonably necessary unless the failure to begin such investigation is caused by factors beyond the control of the insurer". Also, on August 29th, 2024, Vyrd advised the review of the DryOps water mitigation and mold remediation should be completed next week. This was another false promise and another week passed by without payment. Also, on August 29th, 2024 [name redacted] provided Vyrd with another incurred ALE expense from AirBNB for $8,923.66 and again asked for contact information for who will be reinspecting as no one has reached out. On September 3rd, 2024 Vyrd issued ALE payment for $12,103.72 , but did not include ALE for the most recent expense submitted on August 29th, 2024 for $8,923.66. Vyrd also acknowledged the proof of loss on September 3rd, 2024 but said it could not accept or reject it because it wants a reinspection by a General Contractor from Wareham Construction and [name redacted] with SEA limited to address the washing machine part that failed. Vyrd, still could not provide contact information to schedule these inspections. On September 6th, 2024, Frustrated with the further delays of the claim by Vyrd Insurance, [name redacted] reached out to Desk Adjuster [name redacted] advising him it has been 57 days since the loss occurred, 19 days since the proof of loss was submitted yet no one has reached out for a inspection and how we have $8,923.66 in ALE expenses past due. After that email was sent, finally a representative from Wareham construction reached out and the first available inspection was scheduled for September 17th, 2024 and Vyrd was advised of the same. On September 17th, 2024, Adam from Wareham Construction inspected the property for a mere 68 minutes and he is not a licensed insurance adjuster. Again on September 18th, 2024, [name redacted] reached out to Vyrd to request a status update on the claim as we are unable to commence repairs due to Vyrd failing to pay for direct physical loss and asking no repairs to be made until they can inspect and agree on scope, also requesting a update on the past due ALE payments and past due contractor invoices. Then on September 23rd, 2024 [name redacted] reached out to Vyrd as the claim has been ongoing for more than 60 days, Vyrd not requesting reinspections timely, delaying payement, and not being reimbursed for ALE. On September 23rd, 2024 an engineering inspection occurred. [name redacted] from Vyrd stated on September 23rd, 2024, The coverage determination has already been issued, and that occurred within the 60-day timeframe. The engineer and GC were requested timely. I will be reaching out to DryOps this week to discuss their estimates. The 3rd ALE request has already been submitted for approval. I should have that this week. You can begin repairs if you have not already, so you may return to your residence. I should have the GC Estimate by October 4, 2024. The engineer stated that the washing machine was not repaired completely, so we will need to know if the washing machine is fully functional after the repair technician comes back to complete the repairs. DryOps does not collect deductibles for VYRD. The deductible was addressed in the initial payment. In response to [name redacted] 's email, [name redacted] advised Vyrd that, It has now been 80 days since the loss occurred, and VYRD has NOT accounted for one square inch of drywall, despite there being direct physical damage to it. Additionally, VYRD still has not paid our EMS contractor's past-due invoice. VYRD's estimate specifically states, "No supplemental payment will be considered without prior approval of VYRD. If your contractor's estimate is greater or additional damages are found, contact us prior to signing any contracts or proceeding with the work." Due to the inaccurate adjustment of the loss, we hired a building consultant who accounted for all damages and submitted a proof of loss to VYRD. Despite the passage of 30 days since the proof of loss was submitted, we have yet to receive the supplemental payment. Furthermore, we still have not been fully reimbursed for ALE, which was submitted on 8/29/24. With the AIRBNB rental expiring on 10/14/2024, we will now require additional ALE. Additionally, Hurricane Helene has greatly devastated our area, which may result in further construction delays. No contractor will agree to do the work based on VYRD's estimate, as it did not include any drywall or account for the laundry room (where the loss occurred), the bathroom next to the laundry room, or the fireplace all of which suffered direct physical damage from the loss. You claim that a coverage determination was made within 60 days, but this is not fully accurate, as VYRD has still not paid for items that were damaged due to direct physical loss, nor for the EMS contractor, and is more than 30 days behind on our ALE payments. These delays represent multiple breaches of the terms and conditions of the policy, as well as violations of Florida Consumer Protection statutes. We have complied with three different inspections at the property. Please advise what factors beyond VYRD's control are hindering the finalization of the claims investigation so we can move forward. Will VYRD be paying the entire estimate that we submitted so we can start work? We are unable to begin any repairs because VYRD instructed us not to proceed if there is a difference in scope until VYRD provides approval. However, you also told us to begin repairs. Does this mean you are agreeing to our full scope and will be paying for it? You also claim that DryOps does not collect deductibles for VYRD. I am confused, as DryOps is a contractor. Are you stating that we should not pay our deductible to a contractor? If so, who is supposed to collect our deductible? Please advise, as we have already paid our deductible to our contractor. Lastly, please advise if you will be paying us interest for the delayed payments. It also appears VYRD is incorrectly applying the matching limitation to all of the flooring despite the flooring and the underlayment being continuous, which should not fall under the matching limitation. Matching of undamaged property should only apply where there is a transition strip. As of October 10th, 2024, Vyrd has not issued payment on the past due ALE, has not made any payment to DryOps and has continued to delay the claim in bad faith. Despite being on of Florida's newest insurer's Vyrd has had over 125 Civil Remedy Notices filed, since November of 2022, indicating this is a common business practice. Worst still, Carrier failed to retain qualified experts necessary to identify the repairs necessary to restore the property to its pre-loss condition within reasonable time. Under the circumstances surrounding this claim, had Carrier acted fairly and honestly toward the Insured and with due regard for the Insured's interests, Carrier could and should have attempted in good faith to settle this claim. Carrier did not and, instead, dishonestly and unfairly placed its own interests well ahead of those of the Insured. In doing so, Carrier violated Section 624.155(1)(b)(1), Florida Statutes. Carrier's use of unqualified and bias adjusters, and failure to retain experts necessary to identify the repairs necessary to restore the property to its pre-loss condition evidences Carrier's failure to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims in violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), Florida Statutes. Carrier's use of unqualified and bias adjusters, and failure to retain experts necessary to identify the repairs necessary to restore the property to its pre-loss condition, evidences Carrier's failure to conduct a reasonable investigation based upon available information. When applying the facts present here to Florida law, it is clear that Carrier is acting in bad faith. Florida Statute § 624.02 defines insurance as a contract whereby one undertakes to indemnify another or pay or allow a specified amount or a determinable benefit based on determinable contingencies. Inherent is the fact that payment must be made timely and promptly so that insureds may mitigate their damages and be put back into the position they were in prior to the loss as quickly as possible. Carrier has breached this duty by refusing to properly and timely adjust the loss. Moreover, Section 69B-220.201 of the Florida Administrative Code defines Carrier's adjusters conduct here as an unfair claims settlement practice. Specifically, Section 69B-220.201(3) provides that "[a]n adjuster shall not approach investigations, adjustments, and settlements in a manner prejudicial to the insured" and that "[a]n adjuster shall make truthful and unbiased reports of the facts after making a complete investigation." As detailed above, Carrier's investigation and adjustment of this claim was done in a manner prejudicial to Insured, was incomplete, and lacked truthful and unbiased reports of the facts. 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 representatives failed to conduct a thorough and adequate investigation, or the representatives 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 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 denied full coverage for the claim. 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: The Carrier has delayed processing the claim, causing frustration and inconvenience to the Insured.

2. Lack of Good Faith Conduct: The Carrier has not treated the Insured with good faith conduct expected when handling claims.

3. Attempt to [name redacted] : The Carrier has actively sought ways to minimize the amount owed to the Insured under the policy.

4. Attempt to Deny Recovery: The Carrier has looked for reasons to deny coverage altogether, rather than fulfill its obligations under the policy.

5. Failure to Property Evaluate Loss: Claims have not been assessed accurately or promptly, resulting in delays and incomplete indemnity for the Insured.

6. Inadequate Training and Supervision of Adjusters: The Carrier has not ensured its adjusters are adequately trained to handle claims promptly and fairly.

7. Placing Company Interests over [name redacted] : The Carrier has prioritized its financial interests over the health and safety of the Insured.

8. Failure to Provide Complaint Estimates: Estimates provided by the Carrier do not comply with Florida Building Codes.

9. Shifting Investigation Burden to Insured: The Carrier has unfairly placed the burden of investigating the claim onto the Insured. 10. Conducting Inadequate Investigations: The Carrier's Investigation into the claim have been insufficient or cursory. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this civil remedy notice, the Insurer must:

1. Admit full coverage for the Insured's loss and tender all additional amounts owed under the Policy for the covered loss to the insured property Please email any responses to this civil remedy notice to [email redacted] A copy of this form submitted to the FDFS has been sent via email to the following parties, providing them notice of the filing of the civil remedy notice: • Vyrd Insurance Company via DFS Filing • Claims Department, Vyrd Insurance Company via email; • [name redacted] & [name redacted] via email to [email redacted]

1. Admit full coverage for the Insured's loss and tender all additional amounts owed under the Policy for the covered loss to the insured property Please email any responses to this civil remedy notice to [email redacted]

Florida DFS Civil Remedy Notice, filing number 786313. 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. 786313 (Odessa), accepted 10/10/2024 · 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.