Citizens Property Insurance

Over the past few months, many Citizens Property Insurance policy holders received a notification that, unless they opted out within a certain time frame, their property insurance would be automatically transferred out of Citizens and into one of several small start-up insurance companies.  These newly formed property insurance carriers have been nick-named “take-out” companies because their sole source of new business is to take over property insurance policies that have been transferred out of Citizens.  This process has created a love/love relationship between Citizens and these new insurance companies as, through the transfer of policies out of Citizens and into these new start-ups, Citizens can further its goal of depopulating its customer base and the new start-ups get “free” customers without having to market for same.

Of course, all is not rosy for the actual policy holder.  As a recent report reflected, the recent crop of small, in-state property insurance companies have no record of withstanding the losses associated with a major hurricane and have not fared well with insurance industry rankings.  In fact, these new companies only average a “C-minus” rating by Weiss Ratings and 11 of these companies have failed since 2006 – without even having a major storm or hurricane to drive up the claims!  According to the new Weiss Ratings, 19 of the 48 Florida-based property insurance companies received a rating of “D-minus” or worse, which is eye-opening in light of the fact that Florida homeowners pay about $6 billion dollars a year to these companies and we haven’t had a large scale insurable event in over a decade.

The take away is that, although you may not be thrilled with the coverage or level of service that you may be getting from Citizens Property Insurance, you had better think twice about switching to one of the new take-out companies.  Despite all of its problems, Citizens does not have the failure risk of the small private companies and Citizens will always have the money to pay claims – even though it may take years to do so!

 Sadly, although we knew that Citizens Property Insurance Corporation is overrun with corruption, recent news reflects that even we did not know how bad the situation has gotten.  Although the formation of Citizens Property Insurance may have initially been a good idea, it has since morphed into merely a “cash grab” for cronies of Governor Rick Scott and others who know how to work the “system”.

Charles Elmore of the Palm Beach Post recently wrote an excellent article regarding Citizens’ hiring of a West Palm Beach Lawyer and agreeing to pay him $6.5 million dollars – despite the fact that he has no property insurance experience, has by far the highest billable rate, and came in third in all objective rankings.  We have provided the article, in its entirety, below and recommend you read to the end in order to fully appreciate how “insiders” laugh as they bilk the policyholders of Florida:

West Palm lawyer’s fees soar above Citizens rivals

Critics say ties to state officials, costs don’t pass ‘smell test’

By Charles Elmore – Palm Beach Post Staff Writer 

No competitor came close to the $525 per hour fees of a West Palm Beach lawyer whose firm won a contract for more than $6 million from state-run insurer Citizens in December, bidding records examined by The Palm Beach Post show.

The next highest hourly fee, among nine firms bidding from as far away as California: $360.

Citizens executives say the money is well spent if Scott Link and colleagues help the company settle or fight 13,000 claims lawsuits more efficiently without necessarily setting foot in a courtroom, by directing strategy for other lawyers the company already pays. In an interview with Citizens, Link said his role is like “the mover of the chess pieces.”

Not everyone thinks Citizens has check-mated wasteful spending with this deal.

“It doesn’t pass the smell test,” said Jay Neal, president and CEO of the Florida Association for Insurance Reform, a Fort Lauderdale-based advocacy group that includes industry and consumer representatives. “You could bring this in-house and save a lot of money. One of the most important things this company has to do is retain public trust.”

Ackerman, Link & Sartory cited no particular expertise in property insurance before applying in 2012 for the first of two contracts that together stand to pay the firm more than $8 million. In its applications, the firm saw no need to disclose ties to former Citizens President Tom Grady, an ally of Gov. Rick Scott, and Florida Chief Financial Officer Jeff Atwater as potential conflicts.

Records show it finished third of nine bidders in initial scoring by a Citizens evaluation panel for the first contract based on written applications, barely making the cut for interviews. Then it soared to the top after an interview lasting less than 30 minutes.

The compensation stands out at a company criticized for weak oversight on spending by, among others, Gov. Scott’s own inspector general.

Scott Link’s projected billing of more than $1 million a year under the contract is more than triple the $300,000 pay of Citizens president and CEO Barry Gilway, who oversees the entire company. Citizens is Florida’s largest property insurer serving more than 1 million customers.

A draft contract, not yet signed, provides for additional billing at $262.50 per hour for Link’s travel time. That is on top of any travel reimbursements such as hotels or meals, a Citizens spokesman said.

The firm’s job is to serve as “coordinating counsel,” overseeing strategy on lawsuits involving claims from sinkholes to water damage, cases in which Citizens already pays other attorneys.

No ethical concerns

In its application, Ackerman, Link & Sartory said it had no ethics conflicts to disclose concerning Citizens. Not mentioned: former Citizens president Tom Grady had a business relationship with the West Palm Beach law firm, which paid him as recently as 2010, according to Grady’s state financial disclosures.

Grady, a friend and Naples neighbor of Gov. Scott, was interim Citizens president in 2012 when solicitation began for the first of two contracts Link’s firm ultimately won. Those contracts were for a high-paying role that had not existed before at Citizens, and they were handled as “expedited” bids in a speeded-up process.

“This is an emergency contract there was no need for,” said state Rep. Frank Artiles, R-Miami, a public adjuster who has been an outspoken critic of the deal. “This was an inside job.”

Citizens executives dispute that, saying the arrangement was properly bid and stands to benefit the company by helping it handle cases better. That can mean settling some cases quickly, fighting more effectively on others or working with front-line employees to avoid future problems, they say.

Benefit to Citizens argued

Information presented in support of the firm’s work coordinating sinkhole claims said the average amount paid per lawsuit dropped to about $120,000 during the firm’s tenure, compared with more than $140,000 in 2011. Citizens General Counsel Dan Sumner said if a third of the 10,000 pending non-sinkhole cases were resolved on terms the company considers favorable, it could save $97 million in litigation costs over the life of the contract.

Artiles scoffed at such claims at a board meeting last month, saying the company was still losing about half of the very small percentage of sinkhole cases that go to trial and estimating it could save $50 million in litigation costs simply by paying the full claims policyholders submit.

Gilway said plaintiff attorneys would love that, but the company has an obligation to other policyholders not to pay for unwarranted claims. The Citizens president spoke out forcefully for Link in company meetings, saying in November, “We need the talents Scott Link is bringing to the table.”

Another partner in the firm, Wendy Link, is projected to bill $50,000 a year under the deal. She serves on the Florida Atlantic University search committee considering candidates for FAU president including Atwater, who interviewed for the university job Friday but was not named one of three finalists. Atwater appoints Citizens board members and, along with Scott and other top state officials, oversees the company’s management.

Wendy Link listed Grady and Atwater as her first two references for an appointment to the Florida Board of Governors in 2011, records provided by the governor’s office show.

Link told The Post last week she disclosed potential conflicts including the reference and the Citizens contract to FAU and state officials, who “encouraged me to continue my service to the Search Committee.”

As for other questions, she said, “Our firm has always had a commitment to our clients not to discuss any issues regarding our clients with the media unless the client specifically requests that we do so.”

Meeting with Atwater

Two days before Citizens approved the contract Dec. 13, Atwater organized a meeting in his office that included Scott Link, records show. The participants included a homeowner advocate and the only discussion was “to make sure Floridians are getting the claims assistance they deserve,” an Atwater spokesman said.

Despite protests from Rep. Artiles, Citizens board member John Wortman, appointed by Scott, made a motion to approve the contract last month, and it passed 4-1 with two abstaining.

Any business relationship with the West Palm Beach firm had ended by the time Grady assumed his role at Citizens, so it wasn’t an issue, Citizens officials maintained. Officials said they were assured Grady received no residual compensation from the firm, and both the 2102 contract and the one now pending forbid paying fees to others firms or lawyers — including, specifically, an “of counsel” attorney.

Grady is listed in records as having served “of counsel” to the Ackerman firm. That term typically means he received compensation for services without being a partner or full-time employee.

Total payments of $6.5 million over four years to the law firm have been approved, though a final contract has not been signed, a company spokesman said.

If the justification for the contract is to save money over the long haul, is the firm’s pay tied to any specific dollar figures to be saved, or number of cases to be resolved? A draft contract provided by Citizens mentions no particular figures but says, in part, “Anticipated cost efficiencies including demonstrated savings in fees and defense costs will be measured and related to the implementation of specific strategies in order to determine the effectiveness and efficiency of the specific strategies and/or the overall claims litigation strategy in achieving the state objectives.”

‘Hope and a prayer’

Former state insurance consumer advocate Sean Shaw, a Tampa attorney who sues insurers, said, “There’s no evidence this is going to save any money. It’s a hope and a prayer.”

A spokesman for Gov. Scott said before the Dec. 13 vote, “This will be entirely up to the Citizens board and we have every expectation that they will do the right thing to protect Florida taxpayers.”

In an explanation of its ethics policy on its website, Citizens explicitly forbids senior managers from, for example, working for or entering a contractual agreement with a private insurer that receives a bonus to take Citizens customers within two years.

Neither Citizens nor the law firm saw anything in Grady’s situation they regarded as a particular ethics problem, though the company website says determining whether a course of action is ethical involves questions including “How will it look to others?” and “How will it affect Citizens’ status as a trusted decision-making entity?”

Link’s firm claimed no expertise, or even any significant experience, in property insurance or sinkholes when it applied in 2012 to win a newly created $1.5 million contract to become coordinating counsel for sinkhole claims. Instead, it emphasized experience with complex civil litigation involving brokerage and financial firms, auto insurers and phone companies.

The firm was not the initial top choice of a Citizens evaluation committee including Sumner, assistant general counsel Elaina Paskalakis and vice president of claims Lance Malcolm, records show. Based on written applications, the committee scored it No. 3.

No. 1 was Gray Robinson of Tallahassee, followed by Colodny, Fass, Talenfeld, Karlinsky, Abate of Fort Lauderdale. Those firms declined to comment for this story.

“There were others ranked higher for less money per hour?” Artiles said. “Are you kidding?”

But the Ackerman firm rocketed to the top in the interview round. In an interview lasting less than 30 minutes, Sumner told Link he had done a “good job” in the written application distinguishing between the role of coordinating counsel and that of a regular defense lawyer working on a particular case, an audiotape shows. Sumner asked him to elaborate and add “color.”

Sumner asked about fees, saying “you get what you pay for,” but the firm’s fees were high compared to other bidders. Scott Link said he would hesitate to lower fees, which he considered already “discounted” compared to other firms that charge more than $600 an hour doing similar work. That would not be fair to other clients, he said.

Malcolm asked about how the law firm could help the company’s front-line workers process sales and claims. Paskalakis had no questions.

In March, Link’s firm said it reached the limit of its previous $1.5 million contract and Citizens granted it another $100,000 per month.

Citizens emphasized experience as coordinating counsel for the broader contract awarded in late 2013, and by that time the West Palm Beach firm was bidding as an incumbent expanding its prior role.

In his 2013 interview for the bigger contract, Link was again asked if he would consider renegotiating his fees.

“I would certainly increase them if you insisted on it, but I would do it reluctantly,” he said.

People laughed. The moment of levity over, Link then repeated his position the fees were already discounted and lowering them would be unfair to other clients.

 

 

As part of an ongoing effort to give the shaft to Florida consumers, a bill was recently filed with the Florida Legislature which would greatly restrict – or even eliminate – the rights of property owners attempting to properly repair damage caused to their homes by sinkhole activity.  Senate Bill 416 (blandly titled, “Sinkhole Coverage”) is a blatant attempt to not only force property owners to repair their property in the manner chosen by Citizens Property Insurance Company, but to also relieve Citizens of any further liability if its mandate repairs fail to repair the home.

In order to understand the true malevolent nature this proposed bill, it is necessary to understand the manner by which sinkhole damaged properties are normally repaired.  If a property is deemed to have been damaged by sinkhole activity, the insurance company must then provide coverage for the cost to repair the property.  Usually, the engineering firm which initially found the sinkhole activity would set forth a recommended repair method, but then, per the Florida Statutes, the homeowner would also have a say in the manner by which the property was to be repaired.  Through this statutorily mandated consultation between the insurance company and the property owner, it was hoped that an agreeable resolution could be reached and the property repaired to the satisfaction of all.  Furthermore, the law mandates that, if the homeowner was forced to used the insurance company’s repair method, the insurance company must stand behind these repairs and if any further damage resulted or the mandated plan was not sufficient, the insurance company must come back and provide any additional  repairs necessary.

Citizens Property Insurance is now attempting to “legislate” its way out of this deal – but in an amazingly brazen way.  Per SB 416, Citizens would be able to legislatively mandate that property owners not only repair the property pursuant to Citizens’ method, but that the property owners MUST use one of Citizens’ “chosen” repair companies.  But here comes the real kicker – these repair companies must fix the property on a “fixed price” contract.  In essence, whatever cost estimate Citizens’ engineer thinks up, the third party repair company will only be paid that amount per the contract and, if the cost estimate is not accurate or the job runs over, the third party repair company must continue to repair the property and eat the difference in cost!    But wait, it gets better.  Not only does the repair company have to eat any overages in the repair costs (which almost always occur), the repair company would be legislatively mandated to “guarantee” the repairs down the road!  (Remember, it was Citizens’ engineer who made the cost/repair estimate, not the repair company.)  If the shoddy repairs set forth by Citizens fail and further damage is caused to the home – the third party repair company is stuck with having to pay for the damage – and Citizens gets to walk away with no exposure!   Under the new proposal, despite Citizens being able to force its version of the repairs upon the property owner, Citizens’ only exposure for these repairs – even if the repairs catastropically fail (think Dunedin) – is paying the initial cost estimate set forth by its own engineer.

Now, let’s take this one logical step further.  If Citizens knows that its only exposure is paying the repair cost estimated by its engineer, and Citizens is the entity that pays the engineer….how long will it be before this engineer starts getting pressure to “under-estimate” the repair protocols?  It would be a great deal for Citizens – if its engineer can look at a repair job that should cost $50,000, but instead the engineer gives the opinion that the repair cost should only be $30,000 – that would be all Citizens would have to pay!  And hey, when the expenses hit their true value during the repair of the property, it is the third party repair company that has to pick up the tab – no matter what the cost!  What a deal!  Heck – why not just estimate the cost of repair at a dollar – by law, that is all Citizens would then have to pay!

Clearly, Senate Bill 416 is not good for Florida consumers – or even repair companies for that matter!  During the upcoming legislative session, it is important that all Florida property owners make sure that their elected officials fight for the rights of their constituents and not allow insurance company lobbyists to have their way in Tallahassee.

By now, you’ve most likely seen the stories about the large sinkhole that opened in Dunedin, Florida this week.  The Dupre family was awakened early Wednesday morning to what sounded like someone noisily attempting to break into their house.  Upon inspection, the homeowners were shocked to see that their entire back porch was sliding into a rapidly expanding sinkhole.  The family, along with several neighboring households, were all immediately evacuated by the police and soon, both this home and the adjacent house were officially condemned by the city.  As of this posting, the sinkhole has expanded to over 90 feet wide and almost 60 feet deep.

Those are the facts you’ve heard thus far from the media.  What you probably haven’t heard is the long series of events which led up to this disaster.  Approximately two years ago, Michel Dupre noticed cracking to his home and contacted his insurance company – Citizens Property Insurance Corporation (Yes – that’s right – good ole’ Citizens again!).  After testing the property and realizing that sinkhole activity was causing damage to the Dupre residence, Citizens tried to force the family to accept minimalistic repairs to their home.  The repair method mandated by Citizens only consisted of injecting grout into the soil beneath the home and made no allowance for any actual stabilization of the home.  Insiders in the field will tell you that “repairing” a sinkhole home by grouting alone will fail to fix the problem over fifty percent of the time and will almost always cause additional damage to the home.

Take a look at the attached Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) boring logs from Citizens’ investigation of the Dupre home.  When testing a property for sinkhole activity, engineers check the density of the soil by striking the drill bit with a 140 pound hammer and then noting how many blows it takes to drive the drill bit down 12 inches.  (For instance, on SPT boring #1 you can see that at 15 feet below the surface it took 3 blows of the hammer to drive the drill bit down 12 inches).  If you look closely at SPT boring log #3, you will note that there is a “WR” condition from approximately 25 feet below surface to 70 feet below surface.  WR stands for Weight of Rod.  In order for the engineer to record a WR condition, the drill bit must actually FALL UNDER ITS OWN WEIGHT without even being hit by the hammer.  As you can see, beneath the Dupre residence, the drill bit fell OVER 45 FEET – which indicates that Citizens knew there was at least 45 feet of “nothingness” below the Dupre house!  In spite of this finding, Citizens’ engineer only categorized the damage to the Dupre home as “slight” and noted that there was very little possibility of any further damage.  (Bet he wishes he could take that back!)

The homeowners (understandably) had severe reservations about the minimalistic grouting program being pushed upon them by Citizens and therefore the homeowners hired engineers and other professionals to help encourage Citizens to properly repair the home.  In spite of the clear evidence that Citizens’ mandated repair would be insufficient to repair the home and to protect the Dupres, Citizens refused to listen to the Dupre’s experts for over two years.  Now you may have heard in the media that Citizens, “offered to pay the family $90,000 to repair the home”, but that is absolutely false.  In fact, Citizens has only offered to pay the Dupres $1,500 (not a misprint – One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars) despite the all of the evidence (even from its own engineers) of the true cost to repair the home.

As I’ve referenced in previous posts, Citizens has spent over 100 million dollars fighting insurance claims and absolutely refuses to make any payment whatsoever on sinkhole claims.  After two years of fighting for coverage, the Dupre family had no option but to let Citizens have its way with their home.  After two days of letting Citizens stubbornly pump “grout” beneath their home….you guessed it!  (And yes, that is a swimming pool you see below being squeezed down into the hole.)

Clearly, the Dupres are now going to “have their way” with Citizens – hopefully a jury of homeowners will help decide Citizens’ fate.  But the question then arises – what about the neighbors?  At least two homes have now been condemned and several others have incurred grevious damage as the direct result of Citizens’ actions -what recourse do these neighbors have?  If they have sinkhole coverage, then these homeowners could look to their own policies for loss coverage, but why should these other carriers have to bear the burden of Citizens’ arrogance?  What if the neighbors do not have sinkhole coverage?  Unless the damage to their home mandates condemnation (and thereby activating coverage under the Catastrophic Ground Cover Collapse portion of their policy), these homeowners would have no recourse and would have to make any repairs themselves.  Thanks Citizens!

Hopefully Mr. Scott and the rest of our elected officials in Tallahassee will take this situation to heart and will enact some real reforms at Citizens.  If not, the voters of Florida should hold them accountable on election day.  Because, who knows – you could be Citizens’ next victim.

Citizens Property Insurance Corporation has been earning a reputation for systematically denying almost every insurance claim asserted by its policyholders.  Instead of honoring valid claims, Citizens spends millions of dollars each month “defending” claims – the same type of claims that other insurance companies would routinely pay without question.  Although those of us in the industry have been decrying Citizens’ business practices for years, last week the Tampa Bay Times finally posted an article pointing out Citizens’ track record of fighting valid insurance coverage claims and needlessly lining the pockets of law firms to “defend” against these claims.

Now, on the chance you might believe that Citizens’ policy of denying claims and raising meritless defenses is just urban legend, I offer the following examples of Citizens’ behavior from our recent experience:

Example A – Our client presented Citizens with a sinkhole damage claim, which Citizens summarily denied.  We provided Citizens with testing evidence which undeniably reflected sinkhole activity on our client’s property and also provided reports from neighbors on all three adjacent sides (left, right and behind) which had been confirmed for sinkhole activity.  Citizens’ response?  They offered $500.  They also promised that, once the policy holder ultimately won at trial (which they conceded would happen), Citizens would appeal the outcome (regardless of merit) in order to further drag out the process.

Example B – Citizens’ engineers actually confirmed sinkhole activity on the property of another one of our clients, but still – three years later – Citizens refuses to pay for the appropriate repair of the property.  Just yesterday, a large sinkhole actually opened up directly next to their house.  Our clients’ story even made the evening news last night.  Even so, Citizens refuses to provide coverage for the appropriate repair of the home.

Sadly, there is no one guarding the hen house at Citizens.  Outside vendors – mostly insurance defense law firms with the most to gain from Citizens’ stance on fighting claims – have convinced Citizens that the best way to handle claims is to fight tooth and nail on every issue, even when there is absolutely no chance of winning.  Obviously, the harder you fight payment on a given claim, the more money the insurance defense law firm can make billing Citizens for delaying/defending/denying the claim.

The other side of this coin is that, once the policy holder ultimately prevails on his claim, the insurance company is also responsible for the payment of the policyholder’s attorney’s fees and costs.  Accordingly, Citizens ultimate “reward” for denying valid claims is that the insurance company has to pay (1) the full amount of the repair costs, (2) pre-judgment interest on this amount, (3) the policyholder’s attorney’s fees and costs, and (4) Citizens’ own attorney’s fees and costs.  It doesn’t take a financial genius to see that it makes more sense to resolve a valid claim early in the process – and thereby avoid the payment of items (2) through (4) above – rather than needlessly waste money defending a claim which the insurance company will ultimately have to pay anyway.  But until there is a change of heart – or management – at Citizens Property Insurance, it may be best to retain qualified representation early in the insurance claim process.

Last night, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation held a public hearing on its proposed hikes to the homeowners insurance premiums currently paid by Floridians.  The hearing was requested by former state Senator Mike Fasano in advance of the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation’s upcoming decision on whether to approve the rate increases being requested by Citizens Property Insurance.  Despite the fact that these proposed rate increases would have a dramatic affect on the premiums Tampa Bay residents pay for homeowners insurance, only about three dozen people showed up for this meeting – most of whom were either employees of Citizens or of the Office of Insurance Regulation.

It seems as though Floridians have given up any hope of ever getting a fair shake from Citizens Property Insurance – or any other homeowners insurance carrier in Florida.  Despite the already high rates Citizens currently charges, Citizens is proposing an average increase of 6.6 percent statewide for residential coverage, and an average of 7.5 percent for all properties insured in Florida.  (The difference between the 6.6 percent increase for residential and the 7.5 percent increase for all properties hints that the proposed increase for non-residential coverage is substantially higher!)  Furthermore, these insurance rate increases DO NOT include any proposed increase in the insurance premiums charged for sinkhole loss coverage.  Although the premium for the non-sinkhole loss portion of the policy is set to go up 6.6 percent, the premium for the sinkhole loss portion of the policy is set to go up as much as 20 percent in Hernando and Pasco counties and as high as 50 percent in Hillsborough County!    To quote a long-gone infomercial guru – “Stop the Insanity!”

Remember, we have not had a hurricane or other major loss event in Florida for over 7 years.  Furthermore, any actuarial argument for higher sinkhole loss premiums is specious at best.  The premiums charged for a current policy year can only pertain to losses which could actually come into fruition during that policy year.  Since the passage of SB 408 in May 2011 and the subsequent inclusion of this law into insurance policies, the ability to effectively pursue a new sinkhole loss claim has been reduced to almost nil.  Ergo, for upcoming policy periods, the insurance carriers will not require large premiums dollars to pay sinkhole loss claims which may arise during these new policy periods because, quite bluntly, there won’t be any such claims.  If no sinkhole loss claims to pay – no reason to charge unreasonable premiums.  Despite this fact, Citizens Property Insurance points to data from prior to the passage of SB 408 to support its claim for higher reserves and premiums.  To any logical thinking person (without an agenda, that is), this is nothing more than a lie to the policy holders of Florida.

Someone needs to hold Citizens Property Insurance accountable for its actions.  Unfortunately, as reflected by the meager showing at the public hearing last night, the policy holders of Florida may have already given up hope.

 

Back in 2007, the insurance industry lobbied for the passage of an alternative dispute resolution mechanism for disputed sinkhole claims – a process which they cleverly entitled “Neutral Evaluation”.  The concept was that if there was a disagreement between a property owner and an insurance company as to any issue related to a sinkhole claim, either party could request that the matter be submitted to the neutral evaluation process.  Upon submission to neutral evaluation, a “neutral” third party expert would review all available reports and estimates and render an opinion as to the cause of the loss and/or the cost to repair.  (Please refer to my previous post re: Neutral Evaluators for a further explanation as to why I place the word “neutral” in quotation marks.)

The new wrinkle in this process is that Citizens is now electing to ignore the recommendations of the neutral evaluator – even when Citizens demanded that the property owner submit to the process!  The scenario we are seeing is that as soon as Citizens senses a dispute between its experts and the property owner, Citizens will immediately file for neutral evaluation in order to prohibit the property owner from filing a law suit.  BUT – if the neutral evaluator then decides that Citizens’ position on the claim is incorrect and that either coverage should be found or a better repair method is warranted, Citizens will then refuse to honor such decision and will mandate that the property owner agree to Citizens original position.

Clearly, Citizens’ current tactics are in direct contravention of the purpose of the neutral evaluation statute.  Citizens new stance on this process is especially shocking in light of the fact that the neutral evaluation process was a product of the insurance industry’s efforts to limit property owners rights with regard to sinkhole claims.  Clearly, it is now more important than ever to seek the advice of a qualified lawyer who specializes in sinkhole claims in order to best protect your rights against the insurance company.