August 23, 2002
Page 7
1931 Tamiami Trail
Port Charlotte, FL 33948
The Quality Cleaner
Great American Cleaners
To: Tom Gallagher, Commisioner
Florida Department of Insurance
Consumer Assistance/Civil Remedy Section
Larson Building, 200 E. Gaines St.
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0322
Re: Great American Cleaners of Port Charlotte (Anthony T. Camarco) rebuttal to
Fireman’s Fund Insurance Companies’ response dated March 29, 2002
FFIC Policy No. : AZ2AZC80595599
FFIC Claim No. : 606P01015667
Date of Loss : 02/24/2001
Type of Loss : Fire
DOI File No. : 22308
August 23, 2002
Dear Mr. Gallagher:
This letter responds on behalf of The Great American Cleaners of Port Charlotte (GAC) to the March 29, 2002 Fireman’s Fund Insurance Companies' (FFIC) response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation.
Please note that Great American Cleaners has just recently received a copy of the FFIC response. FFIC’s legal representative, John Pappass, failed to provide Great American Cleaners with his response when he filed it with your office.
First, on page 3 of FFIC’s response, FFIC claims that ‘the Notice is a legal nullity because it does not set forth any specific amounts, damages or circumstances for Fireman’s Fund to “cure” ‘ is without merit.
The filing of a Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation does not require that the complainant set forth a “cure”, nor does it require that the complainant “provide the violator with an opportunity to resolve a dispute and avoid litigation”.
The filing of a Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation would not have been necessary if the violator (FFIC) had not violated provisions of the policy; had made an honest effort to settle the dispute; and had not violated the various Florida statutes cited in the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation.
Second, FFIC’s lengthy denials on pages 3 & 4 of his response, concerning violations of Section 624.155(1)(b) 1, 2, 3 and Sections 626.9541(1)(i)2, 626.9541(1)(i)3(b), (c), (e), (f), (g) and (o)11, are nothing more than that. While FFIC's legal representative would like everyone to believe his spin, it lacks substance, fact and truth. The violator (FFIC) fails to provide any evidence to rebut the very detailed facts presented in the complainant’s March 14, 2002 Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation. Why? Because he can't.
Third, on pages 4 & 5, the respondent (FFIC), presents a very short, self-serving and incomplete description of what has taken place since the fire of February 24, 2001. My collection of documentation fills four binders, all of which I will make available to the Commission if it so desires. The file, which FFIC holds and refuses to release to the complainant, is contained in numerous boxes. The full scope of the complaint cannot be grasped without the Commission’s review of that file.
In paragraph 2, page 4, the respondent states: "Reports and estimates prepared by the experts and submitted to Fireman's Fund stated that some equipment needed to be replaced, while other machines could be cleaned-up and repaired."
On March 26, 2001, Gac wrote to FFIC's Joe Fassler requesting a copy of a vendor estimate that had been provided to FFIC. "Please fax me a copy of Steiner's full quotation. ....In addition, please send me written confirmation of the following: 1)The amount Fireman's Fund has authorized for freight, installation and startup of a new dry cleaning machine; and 2)The amount Fireman's Fund has authorized for removal and disposal of the fire damaged dry cleaning machine and the contaminated perchlorethylene?" (See attached letter)
Joe Fassler failed to respond to GAC's written request, in any manner, and FFIC failed to provide the information asked for.
On March 26, 2001, referring to the "experts" hired by FFIC, GAC wrote to Joe Fassler of FFIC, "By now, you surely have received reports from each of these three gentlemen, although perhaps the lab analysis is not complete. Please fax me copies of their findings and reports." (See attachments)
Joe Fassler failed to respond to GAC's written request and failed to provide copies of the "experts" reports and findings to GAC.
Some key facts that FFIC chose to leave out of their brief summary include:
February 24, 2001
The cause of fire as determined, by Charlotte County Fire Department, was mechanical malfunction.
March 6, 2001
The Cause & Origin Engineer from Schwartz Investigations, Fort Lauderdale, FL, requested that the dry cleaning machine be shipped to Miami for tear down to determine the exact cause of the fire.
Joe Fassler, FFIC examiner, vetoes this request. Because of his veto, the exact cause of the fire will never be known.
March 14, 2001
FFIC's Joe Fassler insists that GAC restart Garment Pressing in contaminated plant. GAC objects to no avail.
March 14, 2001
GAC's employee reports breaking out in a full body rash and that she is experiencing breathing difficulties.
March 17, 2001
GAC writes letter to FFIC relaying employee's health concerns and seeking advice. No response was received.
March 21, 2001
Crawford adjuster visits GAC and states that the premises are filthy, although FireServices, Inc had cleaned it. He calls FireService and orders them to reclean the premises. FFIC illegally charges this recleaning work to GAC's work order with FireService, Inc., doubling the bill from approximately $15,000 to $30,000.
Chemist hired by FFIC visits GAC and reports to FFIC that the air in the building is hazardous to breath. FFIC fails to inform GAC of findings or to warn of the danger of working in the building.
March 24, 2001
GAC submitted a supplemental listing of personal property items found to be contaminated by FFIC's hired Chemist. The Chemist recommended that all of the items be disposed of. GAC wrote to FFIC's Scott Detwiler, "Please let me know as soon as possible if these items will be covered by Fireman's Fund or not. If they are, I will dispose of them. If not, you must inform me of how Fireman's Fund intends to handle these contaminated items."(See attached letter)
Neither Mr. Detwiler nor any other FFIC representative responded to this written request.
March 26, 2001
"NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OR NON RENEWAL" arrives in mail.
Reason for Cancellation or Non renewal: "LOSS EXPERIENCE"
March 27/28, 2001
FFIC examiner, Joe Fassler, receives authorization to pay subcontractors directly. He fails to do so, resulting in two lawsuits being filed against GAC for non-payment.
The Crawford & Co. Adjuster submits his preliminary estimate of personal property and contents damages ($155, 431.12), to insurance company.
Calls from FFIC's Ross Godwin and John Conley apologizing for the Non renewal Notice and the manner in which the claim had been handled, to date.
John Conley states that, Joe Fassler the Atlanta based examiner is being removed from the claim and the file turned over to the Crawford & Co. independent adjuster. He says that the adjuster is working on a proposed settlement document that will address the contents of the store and all the damaged equipment.
Scott Detwiler of Crawford & Co. calls GAC and states that he has been given the authority to finalize the Personal Property portion of the claim; that he is finalizing his report; and that he will come and sit with GAC to go over the proposed settlement. Before he can do this, he is removed from the case, without explanation.
March 28, 2001
All of the FFIC consultants had reported in. None of them found anything other than mechanical malfunction. Yet, FFIC continues to stone wall a settlement; fails to explain its actions; fails to pay the claim in a timely manner per the policy, which would have allowed GAC to rebuild with minimal loss of customers; fails to respond to any of the more than 12 letters of concern sent by GAC.
April 5, 2001
FFIC, over the objections of GAC, illegally orders further cleaning work and restoration to the premises. This is an apparent panic reaction to the findings of the Chemist, which have not yet been made available to GAC. Over GAC's objections, and at the direction of Fireman's Fund, Fire Services returned to re-clean the premises, although the destroyed and contaminated dry cleaning machine and the damaged Bruske equipment, which are the sources of the contamination, are still on premises.
FFIC illegally charges this work to GAC's work order with FireService, Inc. FFIC runs a $13,000 cleaning and restoration bill up to nearly $50,000.
Without authorization from GAC, FFIC orders FireService, Inc. to pay another dry cleaner for recleaning work subcontracted to it by GAC. FireService was not involved in the subcontracting of this work, yet they pay the bill in accordance with FFIC's instructions. The FireService, Inc. bill now approaches $80,000.
We later learn that FFIC intends to charge the $80,000, plus approximately $3,000 worth of work from another restoration firm, against the $120,000 policy limit, leaving virtually no money for the replacement of damaged equipment and contents.
-GAC receives call from FF hired accountant stating that GAC has to file a claim for Lost Business Income.
- GAC asks him why, since GAC's claim is open and should cover all aspects of the fire damage?
- He again states that GAC has to file a claim.
- GAC requests forms and instructions to file this claim and is told that there are none.
-Accountant says he will call FFIC supervisor J. Conley for information and that he will call GAC right back.
- No return call is ever received from the accountant and no claims forms are ever received from FFIC.
April 6, 2001
The Crawford adjuster informs GAC that he has been pulled off the claim and that it has been assigned to another adjuster. The process starts again.
Rick Brown of FFIC writes a threatening letter to GAC. He ignores the penduing issue of settling the Personal Property portion of the claim.
April 19, 2001
Without explanation, the Chemist's report arrives by regular first class mail.
It shows that, for 29 days, FFIC failed to inform GAC of the dangers inherent in working in the
contaminated building and breathing the air that was contaminated by Phosgene Gas, one of the deadly gases used by the Nazis in World War II.
For 29 days, FFIC remained silent, negligently allowing GAC's employee, owner and customers to be unnecessarily exposed to possible long term, life threatening health effects caused by breathing the Phosgene Gas contaminated air within the damaged premises, as defined by their Chemist.
May 22, 2001
The Insurance Commissioner’s office acknowledges receipt of a Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation filed on behalf of GAC against FFIC. It was assigned DOI file number 12533; and assigned the Acceptable Date as 5/16/2001.
The sixty- (60) day response period required by Florida Statutes 624.155(2)(a) began on 5/16/2001 and expired on or about 7/16/2001. To my knowledge, FFIC failed to respond to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation by the Acceptable Date.
By the end of May, 2001
Two more checks arrive without a settlement sheet or any meaningful explanation as to what is being paid for. Total disbursement, to date, is approximately $120,000 plus $5,000 for Operating Expenses. Subcontractors are demanding payment of $83,000 of the $120,000, leaving approximately $37,000 to replace equipment and contents totally over $100,000.
Catch 22
If GAC pays the subcontractors, there is no money to rebuild the business. If GAC uses the money to rebuild the business, there is no money to pay the subcontractors who, should have been paid directly by FFIC. On the advice of counsel, GAC does neither in the hopes that a quick resolution will be reached with FFIC.
June 11, 2001 (See attached letter to Thomas Lockett, dated June 11, 2001)
GAC, through its legal representative, provides additional financial data, per the request from FFIC representative, Thomas Lockett, who ais supposedly performing an analysis of the Lost Business Income portion of the claim.
Without explanation, FFIC fails to respond to the letter and fails to provide GAC's counsel with their analysis of lost Business income.
Rent Invoices for temporary store space are provided, to FFIC's Rick Brown under cover of the same letter, for payment. FFIC fails to pay the rental bills which are covered under the Extra Expense provision of the policy.
October, 2001
A settlement between GAC and FFIC fails at the last minute when, after GAC had accepted an offer of settlement, FFIC refused to pay for the legal fees of GAC.
July, 2002
Newly released documents and information released by FFIC, indicates that FFIC was conducting a secret witch hunt in which it was determined to prove that GAC's owner had started the fire.
This new information explains why FFIC hired six consultants, namely, they hoped that, eventually, one of them would say something that FFIC wanted to hear. By March 28, 2001, all of the consultants had reported in. None of them found anything other than mechanical malfunction. Yet, FFIC continued to refuse to settle or even to explain their actions.
Fourth, in paragraph 2, page 4, the respondent states: “Fireman’s Fund made several payments to GAC for replacement of the dry cleaning machine, as well as for its business interruption claim.”
The following are: disbursement amounts, the dates they were received, and the explanation of each