Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     652558
Filing Accepted:  10/24/2022
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
ULETT   First Name   DATON
Street Address * 607 CONGRESSIONAL WAY
City, State Zip * DEEFIELD BEACH, FL 33442
Email Address * LDDUCHEINE@DIENERFIRM.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   ULETT   First Name   DATON
Policy # * 59 - CY - L561 - 2 Claim #* 59 - 38W5 - 52R
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* DUCHEINE First Name * L. DICK Initial
Street Address* 8751 W. BROWARD BLVD., SUITE 404
City, State Zip* PLANTATION , FLORIDA 33324
Email Address * LDDUCHEINE@DIENERFIRM.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10739
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Unfair Trade Practice
* Statutory provision(s) which the insurer allegedly violated.
 
624.155(1)(b)(1) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests.
624.155(1)(b)(3) Except as to liability coverages, failing to promptly settle claims, when the obligation to settle a claim has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f) Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of the basis in the insurance policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g) Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h) Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i) Failing to pay personal injury protection insurance claims within the time periods required by s. 627.736(4)(b).
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

SECTION I – LOSSES INSURED COVERAGE A – BUILDING PROPERTY AND COVERAGE D – LOSS ASSESSMENT We will pay for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage A and Coverage D, unless the loss is excluded or limited in SECTION I – LOSSES NOT INSURED or otherwise excluded or limited in this policy. However, loss does not include and we will not pay for, any diminution in value. SECTION I – LOSSES NOT INSURED 1. We will not pay for any loss to the property described in Coverage A and Coverage D that consists of, or is directly and immediately caused by, one or more of the perils listed in items a. through m. below, regardless of whether the loss occurs abruptly or gradually, involves isolated or widespread damage, arises from natural or external forces, or occurs as a result of any combination of these: f. seepage or leakage of water, steam, or sewage that occurs or develops over a period of time: (1) and is: (a) continuous; (b) repeating; (c) gradual; (d) intermittent; (e) slow; or (f) trickling; and (2) from a: (a) heating, air conditioning, or automatic fire protective sprinkler system; (b) household appliance; or (c) plumbing system, including from, within or around any shower stall, shower bath, tub installation, or other plumbing fixture, including their walls, ceilings, or floors We also will not pay for losses arising from condensation or the presence of humidity, moisture, or vapor that occurs or develops over a period of time; g. wear, tear, decay, marring, scratching, deterioration, inherent vice, latent defect, or mechanical breakdown; i. wet or dry rot; k. settling, cracking, shrinking, bulging, or expansion of pavements, patios, foundations (including slabs, basement walls, crawl space walls, and footings), walls, floors, roofs, or ceilings;
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

On or about September 2, 2022, at the home of Daton Ulett (hereinafter referred to as “Insured” ), located at 607 Congressional Way, Deerfield Beach, Florida 33442, was damaged as a result of a water leak onto the dwelling resulting in significant damage onto the dwelling interior. The property in question is insured by State Farm Florida Insurance Company, whose address is P.O. Box 106169, Atlanta Georgia 30348 - 6169 (hereinafter referred to as “SFFIC” ) under Policy No. 59-CY-L561 - 2. The insured promptly reported the leak claim to SFFIC. SFFIC acknowledged the claim and assigned claim No.: 59 – 38W5 – 52R to the loss. The policy covers water leaks up to the limit of coverage “A.” The insured mitigated damages, determined the plumbing issue resulting in the instant loss, allowed inspection, and otherwise complied with all obligations under the policy. In the instant claim, SFFIC failed to adjust the claim in a substantive, meaningful and ethical manner. SFFIC, as a business practice, routinely ignores claims, under pays covered claims and unnecessarily delays payment on a claim until they are forced to pay. SFFIC as a business practice intentionally drags out claims in order to make the insured suffer in hopes that the insured will give up and simply go away. Here, SFFIC has repeated a pattern of immoral, deceptive and unlawful behavior generally described as bad faith conduct which is part of a general business practice that is knowingly being utilized by SFFIC for self gain. However, as SFFIC so routinely does, it began setting the stage to limit and/or deny coverage from the very onset of receiving notice of the claim. Despite clear and convincing evidence that the event was a covered loss however, and despite the insureds absolute compliance and cooperation with SFFIC’ investigation that extended above and beyond that which was required under the policy, SFFIC has failed in its responsibilities as an insurer and has failed to render adequate coverage benefits to the insureds In conjunction with this claim, the insured retained the assistance of a public adjuster. Accordingly and as will be detailed below, the insured’s public adjuster had provided SFFIC with an exhaustive level of documentation and supporting information regarding the claim and its damages. Additionally, the insured and their public adjuster have accommodated the numerous requested by SFFIC making the home available without reservation. After completing its investigation into claim no. 59 – 38W5 – 52R, SFFIC unilaterally determined that the insured suffered a covered loss with compensable damages in the amount of $1,753.87 under Coverage A. On or about October 10, 2022, the insurer sent correspondence, with a determination to cover the claim, and issuing a woefully inadequate amount of insurance benefit funds, with explanation that the cost to repair the drywall damage and interior damage, related to the loss, is the responsibility of the condominium association. The estimate of damages created and presented to the Insured, as well as the lack of ensuing payment, is woefully inadequate and does not even remotely address the damages the insured property incurred on September 2, 2022. The SFFIC repair estimate is rife with technical errors, shortcuts, mistakes, and miscalculations. More specifically stated, the errors include, a total failure to acknowledge the ensuing damage to the, kitchen, living room and the other areas of the dwelling affected by this loss. Section 105 of the Florida Building Code and Florida Statutes Section 553.79 mandates that a permit be pulled for the repair work to be performed at the insured premises. Nonetheless, the insured submitted a repair estimate for the dwelling and contents, in the amount of $44,232.49 Further, the insured documented the nature of the loss and provided numerous photographs of the loss and submitted documenting the areas affected by the loss. As of October 22, 2022, the public adjuster to the insured provided SFFIC with volumes of claim documentation. This included: • Allowing SFFIC to inspect the loss. • Public adjuster’s scope of loss and repair estimate. • Emergency mitigation dry logs • EMS photographs. • Over 40 Photographs of the Insured Property loss • A sworn proof of loss If not acting with a reckless disregard for the interests of its insureds, Insurer knows (“knows” as used herein includes knowledge that would have existed if not acting with a reckless disregard for the truth) that condominium plumbing water leak damages are of a nature that a thorough, nuanced and specialized investigation/adjustment of the claim needs to be promptly performed by qualified and prepared personnel to protect its insureds, satisfy its fiduciary duties and otherwise not engage in the Bad Faith claim handling practices at issue. That said, to the detriment of its insureds and to maximize its financial interests, Insurer disregards the obvious and known obligations by way of the Bad Faith general business practices that are further delineated, described and specified as follows: (a.) Not developing, maintaining and/or instituting policies, procedures, protocol or guidelines to determine whether adjusters/personnel/vendors utilized to protect its insureds were even qualified and trained to duly assess the scope, cause and/or value of the loss; (b.) Insurer knows that in order to duly adjust, investigate and issue payment for a loss it needs to retain vendors that: are licensed and qualified to perform necessary mold, asbestos, and lead assessments, and then institute a mold, asbestos, or lead remediation protocol in order to develop the necessary predicate for establishing the true scope and value of the loss; are certified and qualified to perform necessary assessments, and then institute a reasonable remediation protocol to develop the necessary predicate to secure the true scope and value of the loss; licensed and qualified to adjust the scope, cause and/or value of the loss per reliable principles and methods, and only after, the necessary underlying considerations of the reasonable and necessary remediation protocols are considered; licensed and qualified to assess method and scope of repairs to repair water damage to a building; (c.) Insurer has and does arbitrarily and without fixed protocol hire experts to establish a lack of coverage or undervalue repairs as it relates to a specific claim; (d.) Insurer knows that it would be in their insureds’ interests and their obligation under the insurance policy to utilize personnel/vendors to perform mold, asbestos, or lead assessments throughout the insured property to honestly assess the full extent of damages and losses suffered by its insureds. Like the other duties and actions described herein, such practice is a basic, inexpensive, efficient and industry wide accepted means of protecting its insureds, however, Insurer knows that it does not serve its financial interest since it will increase its financial obligations to insureds such as Insured; (e.) Insurer knows that it would be in their insureds’ interests and their obligation under the insurance policy to utilize personnel/vendors to perform detailed, thorough, reliable and qualified assessments of the materials within the building which were exposed to water and subject to losing their structural integrity and/or developing toxic conditions; which have accrued, and will continue to accrue. Consequently, insureds such as the Complainant were forced to: fend for themselves to mitigate damages arising from SFIC’s Bad Faith; incur out of pocket expenses that SFIC was required to afford pursuant to the policy; absorb the bur (f.) In relation to experts and/or adjusters retained by the Insurer to assess the scope and value of the loss, and in the interest of limiting loss adjusting expenses and otherwise maximizing its own profits, the Insurer fails to implement policies, procedures and guidelines to ensure that data and/or facts are initially and/or continually provided to the relied upon vendor to ensure that any findings and/or opinions are duly and fairly evaluated as information is gathered; (g.) Insurer deliberately undervalues/under adjusts claims, including this Claim, so that it does not have to set proper and fair reserves for the Claim, which has the effect of devaluing Insurer’s stock price because of the excess liability on its books; (h.) Insurer deliberately fails to set proper and fair reserves in light of all the information available to Insurer for the Claim in order improve its financials; It is clear that the insurer’s general business practice of willful, wanton, immoral, deceptive and bad faith claim handling policies, procedures, adjusting, investigating has caused the insured to suffer further harm and extra-contractual damages, expense, inconvenience and delay associated with an insurer who was not equipped (because they didn’t want to incur the expense associated therewith) to meet their contractual obligations; be placed in situation where they have to incur the costs associated with hiring experts/professionals/counsel to force SFFIC to abide by their fiduciary duty and avoid the consequential damages associated with SFIC’s failure to perform pursuant to its fiduciary duty; In order for SFFIC to cure this civil remedy notice, SFFIC must: Cure the above stated immoral, deceptive, unlawful and generally described bad faith conduct which is part of a general business practice that is knowingly being utilized by SFFIC for self-gain, SFFIC must act fairly and honestly towards the Insureds, with due regard for the Insured’s interests as SFFIC attempts to settle the Claim; Immediately, and under no circumstances no later than sixty days from the date of this Civil Remedy Notice, tender $44,232.49, with statutory interest, adjusted by prior payments and the deductible.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
ldduch@hotmail.com 03-07-2023 Plaintiff, Daton Ulett, withdraws the instant CRN, this matter has been resolved.
CConnally@wlclaw.com 12-21-2022 December 21, 2022 SENT VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL Via E-Mail to: LDDUCHEINE@DIENERFIRM.COM L. Dick Ducheine, Esq. 8751 West Broward Blvd., Suite 404 Plantation, FL 33324 RE: ULETT v. STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY Filing No.: 652558 Claim No.: 59-38W5-52R Policy No.: 59-CY-L561-2 Date of Loss: 9/2/22 Our File No.: 32907 Dear Mr. Ducheine: Please allow this to serve as State Farm Florida Insurance Company (hereinafter “STATE FARM”) Response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation (hereinafter “CRN”) filed on behalf of its Insured, Daton Ulett (hereinafter “ULETT” or “INSURED”) relative to the above-referenced claim. At the outset, STATE FARM denies that any of its actions taken with regard to this claim have resulted in violation of Florida law, including any provisions of §624.155 or §626.9541, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the notice. Defendant requests that the Notice be rejected because it does not comply with the requirements described in the aforementioned Florida Statutes and Florida case law. In the CRN, ULETT has alleged that STATE FARM has violated Florida Statutes, as follows: • 624.155(1)(b)(1): Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests. • 624.155(1)(b)(3): Except as to liability coverages, failing to promptly settle claims, when the obligation to settle a claim has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage. • 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. • 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b): Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. • 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c): Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. • 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f): Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of the basis in the insurance policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement. • 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g): Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of the basis in the insurance policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement. • 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h): Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary. • 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i): Unfair claim settlement practices. Although the allegations are unsupported and STATE FARM is not waiving the deficiencies, STATE FARM will respond accordingly. The Insured, ULETT, upon information and belief, was at all times material the owner of the real property located at 607 Congressional Way, Deerfield Beach, Florida 33442 and had a H6 2159 Condominium Unit Owners Policy for his property with STATE FARM for the Policy period between March 17, 2022 and December 22, 2022 subject to the terms, conditions, additional coverages, losses insured, losses not insured and applicable endorsements of the subject Policy bearing Policy number 59-CY-L561-2. It should be noted that this was an alleged plumbing loss that occurred on or about September 2, 2022, which was reported 5 days thereafter on September 7, 2022. STATE FARM opened and afforded coverage as outlined below. Upon learning of the loss, which was reported as “leak from another unit into the insured’s kitchen ceiling walls baseboards countertops were affected” made to STATE FARM on the following day of September 8, 2022, STATE FARM sent out its Homeowner Bill of Rights and Duties After Loss letters. Also on that same day, it assigned Mark Murphy as the STATE FARM Claims Handler. In turn, Cole Ivey was assigned to inspect the alleged damage. STATE FARM received the INSURED’s Sworn Statement in Proof of Loss, dated September 19, 2022, and on September 21, 2022 sent out to the INSURED’s public adjuster, Horizon Public Adjusters, an acknowledgement letter and the following day of September 22, 2022 sent the INSURED a letter advising of the right to mediate. Initially, Mr. Cole coordinated September 28, 2022 as the date to inspect the subject property; however, due to an approaching hurricane, the inspection was re-scheduled to October 4, 2022. Present at the inspection was the INSURED and Public Adjuster, Judes Amilcar with Horizon Public Adjusters. The FA noted that the neighbor above was unwilling to speak to ULETT. It was advised that ULETT was gone and when he returned, he found wet walls and peeling paint. There was damage observed to the kitchen walls with wet paint but there was no damage noted to the kitchen cabinets. Additionally, the living and entry way had wet paint and baseboards noted. The flooring was not affected. There was mitigation with Quick Dry 24/7 Restoration, which commenced on September 7, 2022 and that was completed prior to the agreed upon FA inspection. It appears that there was a prior loss of June 19, 2022, wherein there was a reported leak from the above neighbor too but that claim was withdrawn. The INSURED and Public Adjuster confirmed that the damages from that leak were in another part of the unit and not related. A Request for Information Letter was sent to the INSURED on October 7, 2022. As part of its continued investigation, on or about October 10, 2022, STATE FARM obtained an incident report by the condominium association, which noted that “they had a plumber check out the neighbor’s unit and found no active leaks; however, the neighbor told them that he had been using his sink to fill up water containers to take water to his sister who was out of water. They observed the neighbor’s kitchen sink area that was saturated and suspect that he left the water on unattended and this caused a sink overflow.” Horizon Public Adjusters provided an estimate in the amount of $44,232.49. Thereafter and well within the 90-Day Statutory mark of December 6, 2022 for an insurance carrier to make a coverage determination, STATE FARM sent its coverage determination letter, dated October 12, 2022, to ULETT noting monetary damages in the amount of $1,753.87. Additionally, STATE FARM noted in its coverage determination letter that, “[b]ased upon the results of our discussions, site inspection, and investigation, it was determined that a portion of your damage is not covered by your policy. The costs associated with repairing the drywall along with any other interior repairs that are the condominium association’s responsibility are not covered under your policy. However, the remaining interior water damages from the leak are covered.” Additionally, the letter goes on to note the difference between the Horizon estimate and the STATE FARM estimate. Specifically, it outlined: • Kitchen cabinet & countertop replacement – No damages were found to the cabinets or countertops from the reported cause of loss • Seal entire walls/ceiling and paint two coats – Not warranted; STATE FARM allows to seal affected area and paint one coat over entire wall/ceiling for uniform appearance • Mask and prep, floor protection, dust protection, cleaning – Contractors are expected to protect and clean their own work areas. Also, cleaning was already included in the mitigation estimate. • Replacement of undamaged baseboards – Not warranted; SFE allows for replacement of damaged baseboards and one final coat to undamaged baseboards for uniform appearance. • Replacement of living room mirrors – No damages were found to the mirrors from the reported cause of loss. • Permits/fees – These are allowed if required by the governing authority and paid as incurred. STATE FARM also reviewed both mitigation estimates from QuickDry 24/7 received in the total amount of $11,783.92 and adjusted the following: • Emergency service call during business hours - Not warranted. This is a cost of doing business. Mitigation by nature is an emergency service-based business during regular hours. • 3rd party monitoring charge, van fees, supervisory hours - These charges are a cost of doing business for the company and not a direct cost to the insured. Also, mitigation line items already include appropriate labor. • Negative Air Fan/Air Scrubber and filters - Not warranted for a category 2 water loss as there is no verifiable hazardous material and there is no mold coverage on the policy. • Wall cavity drying - Per FL state condo act, condo association is responsible for drywall and wall cavity items. • Thermal imaging - Not warranted for this loss. Traditional moisture mapping with moisture sensors and readers is the customary method to detect water and is included in the equipment set-up hours. • Equipment decontamination charge - Changed from 14 to 8 due to the air scrubbers & wall cavity dryers mentioned above. It was determined that the amount of $5,284.65 was deemed to be the reasonable and customary amount due under the Policy for their services. Accordingly, it was noted that the STATE FARM estimate was $1,753.87 with $393.35 of recoverable depreciation applied for an amount of $1,360.52. The QuickDry 24/7 adjusted amount for mitigation was $5,284.65, which was a sub-total of $6,645.17 prior to the application of the $500.00 mandatory deductible, thus bringing the net payment to $6,145.17 under Coverage A – Dwelling. It should be noted, when addressing the validity of the CRN and any perceived violations of the carrier’s conduct in relation to a perceived violation, that the Supreme Court of Florida case of Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety, 753 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 2000) is controlling and binding. Specifically, the Supreme Court of Florida certified the question, “[i]f an insured suffered extra-contractual damages prior to giving its insurer written notice of a bad faith violation and the insurer paid all contractual damages, but none of the extra-contractual damages, within sixty days after the written notice was filed, has the insurer paid ‘the damages’ or corrected ‘the circumstances giving rise to the violation,’ as those terms are contemplated by F.S. 624.155(2)(d), thereby precluding the insured’s first-party bad faith action to recover the extra-contractual damages? Id. F.S. 624.155(2)(d) provides “as a precedent to the filing of a claim for this cause of action in Court that “no action shall lie, if, within 60 days after filing notice, the damages are paid or the circumstances giving rise tot eh violation are corrected.” The Supreme Court of Florida found that “Aetna as timely paid ‘the damages’ and has corrected ‘the circumstances giving rise to the violation’ within the meaning of F.S. 624.155(2)(d). As a matter of law, therefore, “no action shall lie” for not attempting in good faith to settle claims. Id. The Court rejects as unsupported Talat’s contention that the insurer must not only pay the claim within the sixty-window, but must also pay all compensatory damages that flow from any delay in settling the claim. Section 624.155 does not impose on an insurer the obligation to pay whatever the insured demands…Surely an insurer need not immediately pay 100% of the damages claimed to flow from bad faith conduct in order to avoid the chance that the insured will succeed on a bad faith cause of action. If the insurer may avoid a bad faith action only by paying in advance every penny of the damages that it faces if it loses at trial, the insurer would have no reason to pay. Furthermore, few insureds would restrict their demands to compensatory damages. There is no reason why insureds would not demand also the advance payment of punitive damages and attorney’s fees. Section 624.155(2)(d) would have no effect or purpose under such an interpretation. The law does not support such an expansive and illogical reading of F.S. 624.155(2)(d). The Supreme Court of Florida in Talat went on to hold that Aetna’s interpretation is sound. To cure an alleged violation and to avoid a civil action, an insurer must pay the claim (sometimes in excess of policy limits in the third-party context) before the sixty days expire. Aetna has done so and F.S. 624.155(2)(d) states that no action lies. Lastly, the Court reasoned that, “[i]t naturally follows that for there to be a ‘cure’, what had to be ‘cured’ is the non-payment of the contractual amount due the insured.” The facts before us are analogous to that of Talat in that following its thorough claim investigation that State Farm has paid its insured what it believed the owed amount was. There is not a requirement that State Farm pay ULETT the full amount of what is being sought and, in fact, in the context of this CRN, the law is quite opposite. STATE FARM has cured any alleged defects raised in the CRN for the reasons noted within this response. It should also be noted that counsel for the INSURED filed the CRN on October 24, 2022 and on the same day a Property Insurance Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation was sent to the Department of Financial Service, which made a pre-suit settlement demand of $46,979.00 based on $44,232.00 in damages and $4,500.00 sought in Attorney’s fees. On the following date of October 25, 2022, STATE FARM sent the INSURED’s Counsel an acknowledgement and advising that it stands on its prior coverage decision. STATE FARM further noted deficiencies in the CRN included in the allegations of statutory violations, including, but not limited to, §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) “failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims” by citing detailed factual basis to refute same by its timely documented responses by responding with an acknowledgement letter (Homeowner Bill of Rights and Duties After Loss letters) the as soon the call was reported and reaching out to the INSURED through his public adjuster in an effort to coordinate a timely inspection of the property. The Homeowner Bill of Rights letter of September 8, 2022 noted that the INSURED has the right to “receive from your insurance company an acknowledgement of your reported claim within 14 days after the time you communicated the claim”, which occurred the following day and STATE FARM reached out to the INSURED’s representative on September 21, 2022. There were continued communications with the INSURED’s public adjuster throughout the adjustment of the claim. Furthermore, STATE FARM objects to the CRN based on multiple defects, which further render the CRN invalid. For example, §624.155(1)(b)(1), contains generic and vague allegations that STATE FARM was “not attempting in good faith to settle claims, when under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests” without sufficiently specific facts. Additionally, the subsequent alleged statutory violation of §624.155(1)(b)(3) also contains generic and vague allegations that STATE FARM, “…fail(ing) to promptly settle claims, when the obligation to settle a claim has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage.” In fact, as noted within, STATE FARM has clearly acted in “good faith” to settle the claim, as the only claim presented was the claim relative to the dwelling, under Coverage A, promptly, and STATE FARM found coverage in accordance with its timely inspection of the property. It should be noted that, per the CRN, ULETT was seeking $44,232.49 for the loss, which ULETT has failed to provide documentation in order to recuperate same, as STATE FARM only received the Horizon Public Adjusters estimate. The CRN alleges that, “[i]n the instant claim, SFFIC failed to adjust the claim in a substantive, meaningful and ethical manner. SFFIC, as a business practice, routinely ignores claims, under pays covered claims and unnecessarily delays payment on a claim until they are forced to pay. SFFIC as a business practice intentionally drags out claims in order to make the insured suffer in hopes that the insured will give up and simply go away. Here SFFIC has repeated a pattern of immoral, deceptive and unlawful behavior generally described as bad faith conduct which is part of a general business practice that is knowingly being utilized by SFFIC for self-gain.” This simply is not true, as indicated by the coverage determination letter of October 12, 2022. Accordingly, STATE FARM has acted fairly and honestly towards its INSURED in its “good faith” attempt to resolve the subject claim. Under §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), ULETT again alleges generic and vague allegations that STATE FARM failed to “adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims”, again, without facts to support same. As mentioned above, STATE FARM acknowledged the loss immediately upon receipt of the September 7, 2022 first notice and on the following date sent out its Homeowner Bill of Rights and Duties After Loss letter. STATE FARM assigned ACH to inspect the loss and Cole Ivey reached out to the Public Adjuster and attempted to coordinate a re-inspection for September 28, 2022, which was twenty-one (21) days after the reported loss; however, the inspection had to be re-scheduled due to an approaching hurricane and thereafter the inspection occurred on October 4, 2022. Thereafter, at the thirty-fifth (35th) day of its investigation and well within the required 90-day statutory period for a carrier to make a coverage determination, STATE FARM rendered its coverage determination that noted partial coverage for the loss, which was explained clearly that there was not coverage for damaged areas that were to be covered by the condominium association. Payment, thereafter, was made to the INSURED and to the INSURED’s water mitigation company. Additionally, STATE FARM objects to the CRN, and the CRN is defective because it lacks sufficient specificity with regard to the alleged violations, which, again, is expressly required within the allegations in §624.155(1)(b)(1) and §624.155(1)(b)(3), as well as §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a)(b)(c)(f)(g)(h) and (i). These allegations suggest that STATE FARM has engaged in practices that are general and not related to this insured nor the facts of this claim. There is no factual basis to support allegations of “(a) failing to adopt and implement standards for the property investigation of claims; (b) misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue; (c) failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims; (f) failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of the basis in the insurance policy for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement; (g) failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim; (h) failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary; and (i) unfair claim settlement practices”. Additionally, the CRN fails to adequately identify or explain how STATE FARM violated the provisions of Florida law cited in the CRN, and how the alleged violations relate to the facts of the specific claim or the Policy obligations. The sum total of the CRN’s purported “factual allegations” consists of a few boilerplate, generic sentences with few, if any, claim specific facts. ULETT alleges that STATE FARM has engaged in “general business practice of willful, wanton, immoral, deceptive and bad faith claim handling policies, procedures, adjusting, investigating has caused the insured to suffer further harm and extra-contractual damages, expense, inconvenience and delay associated with an insurer who was not equipped (Because they didn’t want to incur the expense associated therewith) to meet their contractual obligations; be placed in situation where they have to incur the costs associated with hiring experts/professionals/counsel to force SFFIC to abide by their fiduciary duty and avoid the consequential damages associated with SFFIC’s failure to perform pursuant to its fiduciary duty.” This is an odd position to take when STATE FARM has opened coverage and timely indemnified its Insured in accordance with its field adjuster inspection and pursuant to the Policy, despite STATE FARM’s unwillingness to provide the INSURED with a blank check or pay the full amount noted in the Horizon Public Adjuster estimate. An unwillingness to pay the exorbitant and unwarranted amount sought by the INSURED’s Public Adjuster, clearly does not rise to the level of “willful, wanton, immoral, deceptive and bad faith claim handling policies, procedures, adjusting and investigating.” The purpose of a CRN is to give the insurer meaningful notice of the alleged violations and a meaningful opportunity to cure them. The purpose is not to force the insurer to engage in “guessing game” as to such matters. Yet that is precisely what the subject CRN does by virtue of the lack of specificity and other defects. Such defects deprive STATE FARM of any meaningful notice and ability to respond. On November 17, 2022, a lawsuit was filed on behalf of ULETT by L. Dick Ducheine of The Diener Firm, P.A., which was served on November 29, 2022. A response to the Complaint is due on December 19, 2022; however, counsel for the parties have agreed that a response will be filed on or before January 8, 2023. The CRN notes that in order for SFFIC to cure this civil remedy notice, SFFIC must: “cure the above-stated immoral, deceptive unlawful, and generally described bad faith conduct which is part of a general business practice that is knowingly being utilized by SFFIC for self-gain, SFFIC must act fairly and honestly towards the Insureds, with due regard for the Insured’s interests as SFFIC attempts to settle the claim; immediately, and under no circumstances no later than sixty days from the date of this Civil Remedy Notice, tender $44,232.49, with statutory interest, adjusted prior payments and the deductible”, which is not appropriate at this stage as not only was the CRN filed well before the lawsuit, but there must be a determination of the underlying lawsuit before a “bad faith” lawsuit can be brought or even contemplated. Because STATE FARM has reasonably and consistently acted within its obligations under the Policy to act fairly with due concern for its Insured’s interests, there exists no factual foundation for the claims made in the Notice. The lack of specificity and other defects deprive STATE FARM of meaningful notice and ability to respond, and further render the CRN invalid. Defects such as these thwart the fundamental purpose of the CRN, which is to give the insurer the opportunity to cure the perceived and alleged violations. If you have any questions regarding this correspondence or the contents within, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, CHRIS D. CONNALLY cconnally@wlclaw.com cc: Amy Knight
Acknowledgement
* The submitter hereby states that this notice is given in order to perfect the rights of the person(s) damaged to pursue civil remedies authorized by Section 624.155, Florida Statutes.

Before submitting a Notice using this system, please verify that all text has been entered correctly and completely. Once the Notice has been submitted, the text cannot be changed or deleted.




DFS-10-363
Rev. 10/14/2008