Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     660064
Filing Accepted:  12/6/2022
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
DEWBERRY   First Name   LAWRENCE
Street Address * 4112 W NORTH B STREET
City, State Zip * TAMPA, FL 33609
Email Address * UNKNOWN
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   DEWBERRY   First Name   LAWRENCE
Policy # * FPH1036193-12 Claim #* FPI223666
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* SMITH First Name * JOSHUA Initial S.
Street Address* 4725 NORTH LOIS AVENUE
City, State Zip* TAMPA , FL 33614
Email Address * JHOFFMAN@SMITHTHOMPSONLAW.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   FLORIDA PENINSULA INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10132
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* CLAIM REPRESENTATIVE WITH THE MOST KNOWLEDGE
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Unfair Trade Practice
Other : Unfair Claims Settlement Practices
Other : Unreasonable Investigation
Other : Failure to act on claim
Other : Failure to provide correspondence to its insured
Other : Misrepresenting insurance policy provisions to the insured
* 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)(2) A material misrepresentation made to an insured or any other person having an interest in the proceeds payable under such contract or policy, for the purpose and with the intent of effecting settlement of such claims, loss, or damage under such contract or policy on less favorable terms than those provided in, and contemplated by, such contract or policy.
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)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e) Failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and, as to partial coverage, the dollar amount or extent of coverage, or failing to provide a written statement that the claim is being investigated, upon the written request of the insured within 30 days after proof-of-loss statements have been completed.
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)(4) Failing to pay undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed under first-party property insurance policies within 60 days after an insurer receives notice of a residential property insurance claim, determines the amounts of partial or full benefits, and agrees to coverage, unless payment of the undisputed benefits is prevented by factors beyond the control of the insurer as defined in s. 627.70131(5).
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

626.9541(1)(i) -- Unfair claim settlement practices. REFERENCE TO SPECIFIC POLICY LANGUAGE: COVERAGE A PROVISION, COVERAGE B PROVISION, COVERAGE C PROVISION, COVERAGE D PROVISION, ALL ADDITIONAL COVERAGES PROVISIONS, ALL COVERAGES PROVIDED BY ENDORSEMENT OR RIDER, THE DECLARATIONS PAGE, LOSS PAYMENT OR SETTLEMENT PROVISION, DUTIES IN EVENT OF LOSS POLICY PROVISION, ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SECTION I OF THE INSURANCE POLICY, THE INSURANCE POLICY DEFINITIONS SECTION, THE INSURANCE POLICY‘S EXCLUSION OF COVERAGE PROVISIONS, ALL INSURANCE POLICY PROVISIONS THAT PROVIDE COVERAGE TO THE INSURED’S PROPERTY, ALL POLICY PROVISIONS.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

THIS NOTICE IS GIVEN IN ORDER TO PERFECT THE RIGHT TO PURSUE THE CIVIL REMEDY AUTHORIZED BY FLORIDA STATUTE § 624.155 FACTS OF THE CASE: FLORIDA PENINSULA INSURANCE COMPANY (“FLORIDA PENINSULA”) HAS COMMITTED THE FOLLOWING IN HANDLING THE INSURED’S CLAIM: 1) CLAIM DELAY 2) NOT CONDUCTING FULL AND PROMPT INVESTIGATION 3) NOT TREATING POLICY HOLDERS WITH GOOD FAITH CLAIMS CONDUCT 4) LOOKING FOR WAYS TO DENY RECOVERY TO THE INSURED 5) LOOKING FOR WAYS TO REDUCE RECOVERY TO THE INSURED 6) LOOKING FOR WAYS TO DELAY FULL RECOVERY TO THE INSURED 7) MISREPRESENTING INSURANCE POLICY PROVISIONS TO THE INSURED 8) MISREPRESENTING FACTS SURROUNDING THE CLAIM TO THE INSURED 9) NOT ADJUSTING CLAIMS AND EVALUATING LOSS PROPERLY, PROMPTLY, AND FAIRLY TO PROVIDE FULL AND PROMPT INDEMNITY TO THE INSURED 10) FAILING TO IMPLEMENT PROPER STANDARDS FOR THE ADJUSTMENT AND INVESTIGATION OF CLAIMS 11) NOT TRAINING, SUPERVISING OR MANAGING ADJUSTERS PROPERLY SO THAT PROMPT AND FULL PAYMENTS ARE MADE, BUT RATHER PLACING THE COMPANY’S INTERESTS BEFORE THE POLICYHOLDER’S INTERESTS 12) NOT ESTABLISHING SEVERITY CONTROL INITIATIVES AND OTHERWISE ESTABLISHING A CULTURE OF NOT FULLY AND PROMPTLY PAYING CLAIMS FOLLOWING LOSSES 13) FAILING TO MAKE A COMPLETE AND ACCURATE COVERAGE DETERMINATION FOR ALL DAMAGES 14) FAILING TO PROMPTLY NOTIFY THE INSURED OF ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NECESSARY FOR THE PROCESSING OF THE CLAIM IN FLORIDA THE WORK OF ADJUSTING INSURANCE CLAIMS ENGAGES THE PUBLIC TRUST. FLORIDA PENINSULA HAS BREACHED THIS DUTY, EVIDENCED BY HOW IT HAS ADJUSTED THE INSURED’S CLAIM OF LOSS. FLORIDA PENINSULA HAS FAILED TO CREATE AND IMPLEMENT ADEQUATE GUIDELINES FOR PROPER INVESTIGATION, CLAIMS EVALUATIONS, CLAIMS HANDLING, AND THE TRAINING AND SUPERVISION OF ITS AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES, RESULTING IN VIOLATIONS AS SET FORTH ABOVE AND FURTHER EXPLAINED BELOW. FLORIDA PENINSULA HAS FAILED TO INVESTIGATE AND EVALUATE THE INSURED’S INSURANCE CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. DESPITE THE INSURED’S TIMELY NOTIFICATION TO FLORIDA PENINSULA OF ITS INSURANCE CLAIM, FLORIDA PENINSULA HAS DELAYED IN PAYING OR TENDERING TO THE INSUREDALL INSURANCE PROCEEDS DUE AND OWED TO IT UNDER THE POLICY OF INSURANCE. FLORIDA PENINSULA HAS FAILED AND/OR REFUSED TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND ACT PROMPTLY UPON COMMUNICATIONS OF ITS INSURED’S AND AGENTS WITH RESPECT TO ITS INSURANCE CLAIM. FLORIDA PENINSULA HAS FAILED TO PROMPTLY SETTLE THE INSURED’S INSURANCE CLAIM WHEN THE OBLIGATION TO SETTLE THE CLAIM HAD BECOME REASONABLY CLEAR UNDER ONE PORTION OF THE INSURANCE POLICY, IN ORDER TO INFLUENCE SETTLEMENTS UNDER OTHER PORTIONS OF THE INSURANCE POLICY COVERAGE. DESPITE THE INSURED’S PLEAS OTHERWISE, FLORIDA PENINSULA HAS FAILED TO ACKNOWLEDGE ITS OBLIGATION TO TENDER ALL INSURANCE PROCEED MONIES DUE AND OWING TO THE INSUREDOR ASSIST THE INSUREDIN THE MITIGATION OF ITS DAMAGES. IN EXCHANGE FOR A PREMIUM PAID BY THE INSURED, FLORIDA PENINSULA BEGAN INSURING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY UNDER AN OPEN PERIL POLICY. FLORIDA PENINSULA’S INSURED, LAWRENCE DEWBERRY, EXPERIENCED A STORM LOSS ON A DATE WITHIN THE APPLICABLE POLICY PERIOD, WHICH DAMAGED SIGNIFICANT PORTIONS OF THE INSURED’S PROPERTY. UPON DISCOVERY OF THE PROPERTY DAMAGE, THE INSURED PROMPTLY NOTIFIED FLORIDA PENINSULA OF THE DAMAGE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITION OF THE POLICY. AFTER NOTICE OF THE CLAIM, FLORIDA PENINSULA DESIGNATED A CLAIM NUMBER, ASSIGNED AN ADJUSTER, AND CONDUCTED AN INSUFFICIENT, QUESTIONABLE INVESTIGATION. AS A RESULT, FLORIDA PENINSULA HAS FAILED TO PAY ALL AMOUNTS DUE AND OWING. THIS WAS DESPITE ALL THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO FLORIDA PENINSULA AT THE TIME OF ITS INVESTIGATION. FLORIDA PENINSULA’S COVERAGE DETERMINATION IS – AT THE VERY LEAST – QUESTIONABLE, GIVEN THE INHERENT FINANCIAL BIAS TO PAY AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE ON THE SUBJECT CLAIM. WHEN AN INSURED MAKES A CLAIM, IT SUBJECTS ITSELF TO CERTAIN DUTIES/OBLIGATION TO ALLOW THE INSURER TO PROPERLY INVESTIGATE, ADJUST, SETTLE AND PAY THE CLAIM. HOWEVER, THE INSURER (FLORIDA PENINSULA) ALSO HAS CERTAIN DUTIES/OBLIGATIONS, ONE OF WHICH IS TO PROMPTLY AND PROPERLY INVESTIGATE, ADJUST, SETTLE AND PAY THE CLAIM. THE INSURED HAVE SATISFIED ALL OF ITS DUTIES/OBLIGATIONS AT THIS POINT IN TIME IN REGARD TO ITS CLAIM; FLORIDA PENINSULA HAS FAILED TO HOLD UP THEIR END OF THE BARGAIN. HAD FLORIDA PENINSULA PERFORMED ITS INVESTIGATION IN GOOD FAITH, IT WOULD HAVE FOUND FULL COVERAGE FOR THIS CLAIM. FLORIDA PENINSULA WAS LOOKING FOR A WAY TO AVOID RENDERING PAYMENT AND PUT ITS OWN INTERESTS AHEAD OF THE INTERESTS OF ITS INSURED. IN SHORT, FLORIDA PENINSULA’S CONDUCT IN HANDLING THE INSURED’S CLAIM SCREAMS BAD FAITH AND REPRESENTS CLEAR VIOLATIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §§ 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i), 626.9541(1)(i)(2), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e), 626.9541(1)(i)(4). AS OF TODAY, FLORIDA PENINSULA HAS FAILED AND REFUSED TO INFORM THE INSURED OF THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THE POLICY OF INSURANCE AND FLORIDA STATUTES. FLORIDA PENINSULA HAS MADE MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATIONS TO THE INSURED REGARDING THE INSURANCE POLICY AND THE FACTS SURROUNDING THE CLAIM, THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE CLAIM, AND FLORIDA STATUTES. FLORIDA PENINSULA HAS ALSO FAILED AND REFUSED TO ADEQUATELY INDEMNIFY THE INSURED FOR THEIR LOSS, AND DEFIANTLY CONTINUES TO DO SO. TO DATE, THE INSURED HAS MADE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE POLICY. IT IS ONLY FAIR THAT FLORIDA PENINSULA DO THE SAME. THE INSURED FEELS THAT THEIR PROPERTY IS THEIR MOST VALUABLE ASSET. AS SUCH, THEY PURCHASED INSURANCE COVERAGE THROUGH FLORIDA PENINSULA IN ORDER TO PROTECT THEIR ASSET. DESPITE PAYING THEIR INSURANCE PREMIUMS, REPORTING THE LOSS PROMPTLY, AND COMPLYING WITH ALL OTHER POLICY REQUIREMENTS, FLORIDA PENINSULA HAS CONTINUOUSLY USED MISINFORMATION IN AN ATTEMPT TO DELAY PROPERLY ADJUSTING THE INSURED’S CLAIM AND DENY FULL COVERAGE. ULTIMATELY, FLORIDA PENINSULA HAS FAILED AND/OR REFUSED TO PROPERLY INVESTIGATE THE LOSS. THE INSURED HAS REQUESTED THAT FLORIDA PENINSULA ADMIT FULL COVERAGE AND PAY FULL DAMAGES; FLORIDA PENINSULA HAS FAILED AND/OR REFUSED TO DO SO. FLORIDA PENINSULA CONTINUES TO REFUSE TO INDEMNIFY THE INSURED FOR THEIR LOSS AND PAY THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES TO REPAIR THE INSURED’S PROPERTY. FLORIDA PENINSULA DOES THIS DESPITE KNOWING IT IS REQUIRED TO DO SO, AND DELAYING OR DENYING THE CLAIM WILL ONLY LEAD TO MORE DAMAGE. IN SHORT, FLORIDA PENINSULA HAS FAILED TO HANDLE ITS INSURED’S CLAIM IN GOOD FAITH. FLA. STAT. § 624.02 DEFINES INSURANCE AS A CONTRACT WHEREBY ONE UNDERTAKES TO INDEMNIFY ANOTHER OR PAY OR ALLOW A SPECIFIED AMOUNT OR A DETERMINABLE BENEFIT UPON DETERMINABLE CONTINGENCIES. INHERENT IS THE FACT THAT PAYMENT MUST BE MADE TIMELY AND PROMPTLY SO THAT THE INSURED MAY MITIGATE THEIR DAMAGES AND TO PUT THE INSURED BACK INTO THE POSITION THEY WERE PRIOR TO LOSS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. FLORIDA PENINSULA HAS BREACHED THIS DUTY. THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY FLORIDA PENINSULA AND ITS ADJUSTERS IN THE HANDLING/ADJUSTMENT OF THE INSURED’S CLAIM WERE WILLFUL, WANTON, AND IN DISREGARD FOR THE RIGHTS OF ITS INSURED. THEY OCCUR WITH SUCH A FREQUENCY AS TO INDICATE A GENERAL BUSINESS PRACTICE AND ARE IN VIOLATION OF FLA. STAT. §§ 624.155 AND 626.9541. FLORIDA PENINSULA’S ACTIONS AMOUNT TO BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING: 1. CLAIM DELAY 2. NOT CONDUCTING FULL AND PROMPT INVESTIGATION 3. NOT TREATING POLICYHOLDERS WITH GOOD FAITH CLAIMS CONDUCT 4. LOOKING FOR WAYS TO DENY RECOVERY TO THE INSURED 5. LOOKING FOR WAYS TO REDUCE RECOVERY TO THE INSURED 6. LOOKING FOR WAYS TO DELAY FULL RECOVERY TO THE INSURED 7. MISREPRESENTING INSURANCE POLICY PROVISIONS TO THE INSURED 8. MISREPRESENTING FACTS SURROUNDING THE CLAIM TO THE INSURED 9. NOT ADJUSTING CLAIMS AND EVALUATING LOSS PROPERLY, PROMPTLY AND FAIRLY TO PROVIDE FULL AND PROMPT INDEMNITY TO THE INSURED 10. FAILING TO IMPLEMENT PROPER STANDARDS FOR THE ADJUSTMENT AND INVESTIGATION OF CLAIMS 11. NOT TRAINING, SUPERVISING OR MANAGING ADJUSTERS PROPERLY SO THAT PROMPT AND FULL PAYMENTS ARE MADE, BUT RATHER PLACING THE COMPANY’S INTERESTS BEFORE THE POLICYHOLDER’S INTERESTS 12. NOT ESTABLISHING SEVERITY CONTROL INITIATIVES AND OTHERWISE ESTABLISHING A CULTURE OF NOT FULLY AND PROMPTLY PAYING CLAIMS FOLLOWING LOSSES 13. FAILING TO MAKE A COMPLETE AND ACCURATE COVERAGE DETERMINATION FOR ALL DAMAGES 14. FAILING TO PROMPTLY NOTIFY THE INSURED OF ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NECESSARY FOR THE PROCESSING OF THE CLAIM THEREFORE, TO CURE THE DEFECTS OUTLINED IN THIS CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE, FLORIDA PENINSULA MUST: (1). ADMIT FULL COVERAGE FOR THE INSURED’S LOSS. (2). TENDER ALL INSURANCE MONIES DUE AND OWING TO THE INSURED FOR THEIR LOSS IN AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO ALL DAMAGES UNDER THE SUBJECT POLICY. (3). PAY STATUTORY INTEREST ON THE AMOUNT OF UNPAID CONTRACT DAMAGES FROM THE DATE OF THE LOSS TO THE PRESENT TIME PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE § 627.70131 AND PAY REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS INCURRED. A COPY OF THIS FORM SUBMITTED TO THE FDFS HAS BEEN PRINTED OUT AND MAILED AND EMAILED TO THE FOLLOWING PARTIES PROVIDING THEM NOTICE OF THE FILING OF THE CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE. VIA CERTIFIED MAIL TO: FLORIDA PENINSULA INSURANCE COMPANY 903 NW 65TH ST, STE 200 BOCA RATON, FL 33487
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
jbosch@qpwblaw.com 01-30-2023 VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION: civilremedy@myfloridacfo.com Florida Department of Insurance Civil Remedy Section 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Complainant: Lawrence Dewberry (“Complainant” or “Insured”) Claim No: FPI223666 (“Subject Claim”) Policy No: FPH1036193-12 (“Policy”) Loss Location: 4112 W North B St., Tampa, FL 33609 (“Property”) CRN Filing No: 660064 CRN Acceptance Date: 12/06/2022 RE: CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE - DFS FILING NUMBER 660064 Dear Sir or Madam: The undersigned counsel represents Florida Peninsula Insurance Company (“Florida Peninsula”) in regard to the alleged dispute as to subject claim number FPI223666 involving a plumbing leak with a date of loss of November 28, 2021, made under the Policy of insurance Florida Peninsula issued the Insured bearing the number FPH1036193-12. This correspondence constitutes Florida Peninsula Insurance Company’s response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (“Notice” or “CRN”) you filed on behalf of Lawrence Dewberry regarding the claim listed above. Florida Peninsula believes that the Civil Remedy Notice should be rejected and returned by the Department of Financial Services as it completely misstates the facts surrounding this claim. ALLEGED STATUTORY VIOLATIONS 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. Florida Peninsula specifically denies the Insured’s allegation that it has violated the above referenced statute. Florida Peninsula conducted a thorough investigation in good faith and issued multiple payments accordingly. The CRN does not include any facts to support this allegation. 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. Florida Peninsula specifically denies the Insured’s allegation that it has violated the above referenced statute. Florida Peninsula conducted a thorough investigation in good faith and issued multiple payments accordingly. The CRN does not include any facts to support this allegation. 626.9541(1)(i)(2): A material misrepresentation made to an insured or any other person having an interest in the proceeds payable under such contract or policy, for the purpose and with the intent of effecting settlement of such claims, loss, or damage under such contract or policy on less favorable terms than those provided in, and contemplated by, such contract or policy. Florida Peninsula specifically denies the Insured’s allegation that it has violated the above referenced statute. Florida Peninsula did not make any misrepresentations. The CRN does not include any facts to support this allegation. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. Florida Peninsula specifically denies the Complainants’ allegation that it has violated the above referenced statute. Florida Peninsula has maintained, adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of claims. The CRN does not include any facts to support this allegation. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b): Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. Florida Peninsula specifically denies the Complainants’ allegation that it has violated the above referenced statute. Florida Peninsula did not make any misrepresentations. The CRN does not include any facts to support this allegation. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d): Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information. Florida Peninsula specifically denies the Complainants’ allegation that it has violated the above referenced statute. This claim was not denied. Florida Peninsula conducted a thorough, complete, comprehensive investigation in good faith and issued multiple payments accordingly. The CRN does not include any facts to support this allegation. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e): Failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and, as to partial coverage, the dollar amount or extent of coverage, or failing to provide a written statement that the claim is being investigated, upon the written request of the insured within 30 days after proof-of-loss statements have been completed. Florida Peninsula specifically denies the Complainants’ allegation that it has violated the above referenced statute. This claim was not denied. Florida Peninsula Florida Peninsula conducted a thorough, complete, comprehensive investigation in good faith and issued multiple payments accordingly. Florida Peninsula consistently communicated with the Insureds and their representatives via phone, email and formal correspondence. The CRN does not include any facts to support this allegation. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f): Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the Insureds 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. Florida Peninsula specifically denies the Complainants’ allegation that it has violated the above referenced statute. Florida Peninsula sent detailed correspondence as outlined below. Florida Peninsula Florida Peninsula conducted a thorough, complete, comprehensive investigation in good faith and issued multiple payments accordingly. Florida Peninsula consistently communicated with the Insureds and their representatives via phone, email and formal correspondence. The CRN does not include any facts to support this allegation. 626.9541(1)(i)(4): Failing to pay undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed under first party property insurance policies within 90 days after an insurer receives notice of a residential property insurance claim, determines the amounts of partial or full benefits, and agrees to coverage, unless payment of the undisputed benefits is prevented by an act of God, prevented by the impossibility of performance, or due to actions by the insured or claimant that constitute fraud, lack of cooperation, or intentional misrepresentation regarding the claim for which benefits are owed. Florida Peninsula specifically denies the Insured’s allegation that it has violated the above referenced statute. Florida Peninsula conducted a thorough investigation in good faith and issued multiple payments accordingly. The CRN does not include any facts to support this allegation. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i): Unfair claim settlement practices. Florida Peninsula specifically denies the Insured’s allegation that it has violated the above referenced statute. Florida Peninsula conducted a thorough investigation in good faith and issued multiple payments accordingly. The CRN does not include any facts to support this allegation. In addition to the allegations specifically denied above, Florida Peninsula generally denies all allegations presented in this CRN, as Florida Peninsula has not violated any statute, Code or Rule. SPECIFICITY REQUIREMENTS Florida Statute requires that a CRN state the facts and circumstances giving rise to the alleged violations with specificity sufficient to allow an insurer to “cure” the alleged violations within the sixty-day statutory period. See Fla. Stat. § 624. 155(3)(b)(2). See also Lane v. Westfield Ins. Co., 862 So. 2d 774, 777 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1283 (Fla. 2000). However, here, the CRN is deficient and defective in that it fails to state with sufficient specificity the necessary facts in support of the Insureds’ contentions, including but not limited to, those that would be necessary for Florida Peninsula to “cure” the alleged violations. Further, the subject CRN provides what appears to be several boilerplate and conclusory statements, which fail to describe any accurate facts constituting violations of the statutes cited therein. Thus, because the allegations in the CRN are incomplete and incorrect, they fail to provide actual notice of the specific allegations and the actions that Florida Peninsula could undertake to cure any alleged violations. 316, Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 625 F. Supp. 2d 1187, 1193 (N. D. Fla. 2008). Blanket references to policy provisions and statutes without specification deems the Civil Remedy Notice deficient. Julien v. United Property and Casualty Insurance Co., (Fla. 4th DCA 2020). For the reasons set forth herein, Florida Peninsula hereby objects to the subject CRN and states it does not intend to waive, ratify or otherwise accept the deficiencies in the CRN, and reserves the right to contest the legal adequacy of the CRN hereinafter as appropriate. As to the content of the CRN here, it is important to note that said CRN is a nullity and should be rejected because the CRN fails to comply with the specific requirements mandated by Florida Statutes §624.155. Specifically, Fla. Stat. § 624.155(3)(b)(2) requires the Complainant to set forth with specificity, sufficient factual allegations to state a prima facie case of an insurer violation, so as to put the insurer on notice and be afforded the opportunity to cure the deficiency. However, the Insured failed to do so in the subject CRN and instead only included conclusory statements, which lack even minimal specificity and/or lack the underlying factual basis to support them. The Insureds’ failure to describe any actual facts or circumstances to support the alleged statutory violations in the CRN precludes Florida Peninsula from evaluating what error, if any, allegedly occurred during the claim process. Furthermore, contrary to the requirement to “describe the facts and circumstances giving rise to the insurer’s violation as you understand them at this time,” the purpose of which is “to enable the insurer to investigate and resolve [the] claim,” the CRN itself only provides unsupported and incorrect allegations with no basis in fact or circumstances. Consequently, the CRN lacks the requisite minimal specificity and Florida Peninsula is unable to determine what specifically the Complainants are claiming was done by or on behalf of Florida Peninsula that constitutes the bad faith alleged. Due to the absence of specific and accurate information regarding the alleged acts or omissions by Florida Peninsula which allegedly give rise to any violation of the Civil Remedy Statute, Florida Peninsula is limited in its ability to set forth specific facts to address and/or refute these unsubstantiated assertions. Notwithstanding, Florida Peninsula explicitly denies violations of any applicable Florida Statute in the adjustment of the Subject Claim and realleges and re-asserts its specific denials to the alleged violations in the subject CRN as set forth above, including but not limited to its specific denials of the allegations that it has not attempted in good faith to settle the Insureds’ claim. Moreover, Florida Peninsula specifically denies the following allegations claimed by the Insured’s counsel: claim delay, unsatisfactory settlement offer, unfair trade practice, unfair clams settlement practices, unreasonable investigations, failure to act on a claim, failure to provide correspondence to its insured, and misrepresenting insurance policy provisions to the insureds. Accordingly, without waiver of its objections, rights and defenses, Florida Peninsula maintains that it has acted and continues at all times to act in good faith during the investigation and adjustment of the Insureds’ claim. Further, Florida Peninsula wishes to dispel even the inference of any statutory violation and reiterates below the various reasons which clearly show the proper handling of the Subject Claim by Florida Peninsula. Moreover, as stated in Demase v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company (Fla. 5th DCA November 14, 2022), as a condition precedent to bringing a first-party bad faith case, an insured must provide timely notice of the alleged violation to the authorized insurer and to the DFS. BACKGROUND FACTS Aside from the fact that the allegations contained in the subject CRN lack specific facts, the tenor and inferences of statutory violations are wholly without merit and Florida Peninsula denies each and every one. Below are some of the relevant facts regarding the subject claim that the Insureds failed to include in the CRN. On November 29, 2021, the Insured, Lawrence Dewberry called and advised that he noticed water on the floor by the bed area in the master bedroom the day before, on November 28, 2021. He saw the water again the next morning from under the floor. He had a plumber from RF Plumbing come to the property on the same day. The plumber advised that the water needed to be turned off and the Insured would need a leak detecting company. The Insured advised he is waiting to hear from the adjuster for the next steps of the claim to find out if a mitigation company is necessary and about detecting the leak. He is not sure where the water is coming from. He thinks it is from the pipe leading to the outside spigot in the backyard which shares a wall with the master bedroom and thinks that it is causing water to come through the foundation. On the same day, November 29, 2021, Florida Peninsula immediately sent correspondence acknowledging receipt of the claim. This correspondence included the Florida homeowner claim bill of rights and information on mediation and claims handling. Also on November 29, 2021, Florida Peninsula sent correspondence to the Insured providing the name and contact information of the adjuster assigned to the claim. Florida Peninsula hired Sleuth Leak Detection to determine where the leak was coming from. Sleuth inspected the property on December 1, 2021. The inspection revealed no evidence of any active pressurized water leaks contributing to reported water on the floor. The location of the reported water found on the floor in the master bedroom and bathrooms was consistent with a drain obstruction (due to general paper material buildup) which caused water to leak out of the master bathroom toilet flange/flange seal; however, they were unable to confirm because the obstruction was cleared by a plumber prior to their inspection. In addition to the inspection by Sleuth, the field adjuster inspected the subject property and obtained a recorded statement on December 1, 2021. The field adjuster’s investigation confirmed damage to the master bedroom flooring. On December 3, 2021, Lightning Restoration sent an email attaching a service authorization as well as a report indicating they found that waste water was flowing under the floor from the blown out wax ring under the toilet. The report further states, water traveled into all of the adjacent rooms under the walls and flooring. In the email, they advised the work needed will be greater than $3,000. Based on the investigation, on December 13, 2021, Florida Peninsula sent correspondence to the insured providing coverage for the subject claim issuing payment for $10,000, as the limited water damage endorsement limits coverage for the subject claim. The letter further explains, “Although there is coverage for the damage to the interior of your home, the repair of the failed plumbing is not covered under the policy.” On December 23, 2021, Florida Peninsula received an invoice from Lightening Restoration for $10,930.28, along with dryout logs. Please note, while the claim was being investigated, Florida Peninsula directed a third-party company to provide accommodations for the Insured to stay at a hotel. On January 5, 2022, Florida Peninsula received an email from Housing Headquarters attaching an invoice for $5,591.43 for 12/06/21 through 01/04/22 for 29 nights. In response, on January 17. 2022, Florida Peninsula sent correspondence to the insured stating, “A check in the amount of $5,591.43 will be mailed directly to HOUSING HEADQUARTERS for the temporary housing.” On February 16, 2022, Florida Peninsula sent correspondence to Lightening Restoration seeking photos of equipment in place or information to identify the exact piece of equipment used. On March 2, 2022, a second request was sent. On March 9, 2022, Florida Peninsula sent an email advising they are not in agreement with the invoice submitted and provided a comparative estimate for $6,049.32 to Lightening Restoration seeking to discuss the differences and come to an amicable agreement. On March 15, 2022, after discussing the claim with Lightning Restoration, Florida Peninsula sent correspondence stating, “Payment in the amount of $6,049.32 will be mailed to the insured payable to both named insureds and Lightning Restoration of Tampa Bay for Emergency Mitigation Services provided by Lightning Restoration of Tampa Bay.” Seven months later on October 21, 2022, Florida Peninsula received an email from counsel’s office attaching a letter of representation seeking a certified copy of the policy. On November 13, 2022, the subject policy was sent to counsel as requested. The subject Civil Remedy Notice was filed on December 6, 2022. On December 16, 2022, counsel for Insured filed a Notice of Intent to Litigate. On December 28, 2022, Florida Peninsula responded with correspondence offering to resolve the case for a certain negotiated amount. Clearly, Florida Peninsula has acted in good faith every step of the way since the inception of the claim. INACCURACY OF ALLEGATIONS IN THE SUBJECT CRN The case specific facts related to Florida Peninsula’s handling of the Subject Claim provided above implicitly address many of the vague allegations contained within the Insureds’ CRN and further establish that Florida Peninsula undertook a thorough investigation in accordance with applicable statutory requirements and professional standards of care. It is important to note that the Insureds have not provided even one fact to support for any of the above allegations. Instead, the facts support that Florida Peninsula promptly contacted the Insured, inspected the claim shortly after it was reported, had a leak detection company also inspect, conducted a recorded statement, provided additional living expenses, and issued multiple payments based on a thorough, comprehensive investigation. The circumstances support that Florida Peninsula conducted a thorough, prompt, comprehensive investigation with the information provided. The Insured accuse Florida Peninsula of misrepresenting pertinent facts and delaying the claim without any basis. The Insureds simply disagree with the amount of the payments issued and are alleging bad faith in a scenario where Florida Peninsula conducted a good faith investigation. Also, the Notice fails to set forth any specific policy language alleged to have been violated. Instead, the notice essentially references the entire policy. It is this failure to identify the specific policy provision that is allegedly relevant to the alleged violations that prevents Florida Peninsula from addressing any issues regarding the policy. Furthermore, contrary to the requirement to “describe the facts and circumstances giving rise to the insurer’s violation as you understand them at this time”, the purpose of which is “to enable the insurer to investigate and resolve [the] claim”, the Civil Remedy Notice itself only provides unsupported and incorrect allegations with absolutely no basis in fact or circumstances. Furthermore, the tenor and inferences of the allegations are wholly without merit and Florida Peninsula denies each and every one. Some of the relevant facts that Insureds’ counsel failed to include in the notice have been set out above. In their Notice, the Insureds make 14 statements as to how Florida Peninsula has failed in handling this claim. These appear to be copy and pasted from other claims as they do not apply to the subject claim. They are blanket statements which are in no way specific to the subject claim. Contrary to the statements made in the Notice, Florida Peninsula did not delay the claim as outlined in the facts above. Florida Peninsula conducted a full, thorough investigation, and treated the policy holders in good faith. Florida Peninsula did not look for ways to delay the claim, reduce recovery, or delay recover. Florida Peninsula did not misrepresent the policy or the facts. Florida Peninsula adjusted and evaluated the claims properly, promptly, and fairly. Florida Peninsula implemented proper standards and conducted thorough trainings without putting its interests before those of the policy holder. Florida Peninsula’s culture is to fully and promptly pay claims that are covered under the policy. Florida Peninsula did not fail to make a complete and accurate coverage determination for all damages and in no way failed to promptly notify the insureds of any additional information necessary. As clearly set forth above and contrary to the allegations set forth in the Notice, Florida Peninsula’s investigation and adjusting of the claim was prompt, thorough, and complete. Florida Peninsula did not delay its claim determination in the very least. Florida Peninsula made a claim determination in just 14 days when the statute provides 90 days to so. Among the many blanket misstatements and blatant lies in the Notice, the insureds suggests that the insureds have satisfied all of their duties and obligations but Florida Peninsula failed to hold up its end of the bargain. However, it is the insureds who failed to comply with policy provision requiring prompt notice. The Notice repeatedly makes statements without including facts to support same. For instance, the insured states that the investigation was insufficient without stating how it was insufficient. As described above, this investigation was incredibly thorough. The CRN states Florida Peninsula failed and refused to inform the insureds of their rights but the day after the loss was reported, Florida Peninsula sent correspondence regarding the insured’s rights. The baseless accusations do not pertain to the subject loss in any way. For example, the Notice states “Had Florida Peninsula performed its investigation in good faith, it would have found full coverage for this claim.” First of all, Florida Peninsula did determine the claim was covered. Second, it does not state anywhere how the investigation was not conducted in good faith. It does not state anywhere what Florida Peninsula should have done except pay the full amount sought by the Insured despite the $10,000 water limit in the policy. It alleges misrepresentation but doesn’t state what was misrepresented. All of these baseless claims support Florida Peninsula’s position that the claim was properly adjusted, and the Insureds do not actually have any concrete facts to support a bad faith allegation. The Civil Remedy Notice states that Florida Peninsula can rectify these violations in the following ways: (1.) Admit full coverage for the Insured’s loss; 2.) Tender all insurance monies due and owing to the insureds for their loss in an amount equal to all damages under the subject policy; 3.) Pay the statutory interest on the amount of unpaid contract damages from the date of loss to the present time pursuant to Florida Statute 627.70131 and pay reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred. However, mere disagreement as to the cause of loss does not equate to bad faith. The Civil Remedy Notice does not show how Florida Peninsula has failed to comply with the statutory provisions alleged to have been violated. Evidently, this Civil Remedy Notice was filed in bad faith, as it is being used as an improper mechanism designed solely for the purpose of intimidating Florida Peninsula into overpaying the Insured. For the aforementioned reasons, Florida Peninsula categorically denies that it has acted with bad faith in connection with this claim. CONCLUSION The purpose of a CRN is to provide the insurer an opportunity to “cure” the alleged wrongdoing. Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. , 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). However, the CRN here does not serve this purpose because it does not provide any means as to how Florida Peninsula can “cure” the alleged defects. This failure to provide a proper opportunity to cure renders the CRN improper. Longpoint Condominium Associations v. Allstate Insurance Co. , 2005 WL 131580 (N. D. Fla. June 2, 2005). Moreover, the method for curing the violations alleged in a civil remedy notice are not determined by the insured. In Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. , 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000), the Florida Supreme Court accepted and quoted the reasoning of the court below in its opinion which stated in relevant part, as follows: Section 624. 155 does not impose on an insurer the obligation to pay whatever the insured demands. . . . 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 Fla. Stat. Ann. §624. 155(2)(d). . . . To cure an alleged violation and to avoid a civil action, an insurer must pay the claim . . . before the sixty days expire. Talat, 753 So2d at 1282 citing Talat Enterprises Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 952 F. Supp. 773, 777-778 (M. D. Fla. 1996). Here, Florida Peninsula properly adjusted the subject claim as it investigated the loss well within the statutory time frame and made payment accordingly. The Insureds have produced no evidence that they are entitled to any additional damages. Florida Peninsula denies all of the allegations contained in the subject CRN, which is defective and improper, as Florida Peninsula has not violated any of the subject statutes. Florida Peninsula further states that the accusations made against it in the subject CRN are patently false. In closing, Florida Peninsula first believes that the Civil Remedy Notice should be rejected and returned by the Department of Financial Services due to its failure to comply with Florida Statute §624.155 and Florida Case law. Due to the lack of any factual and circumstantial basis to support the allegations therein, Florida Peninsula respectfully requests, through this response, that the DFS return and reject the CRN for lack of specificity pursuant to Florida Statutes. Regardless of the rejection, Florida Peninsula denies all allegations contained in the Civil Remedy Notice and submits there are no violations. While this response is meant to be comprehensive, Florida Peninsula’s response above is based upon the limited information provided in the Civil Remedy Notice and the information we have to date. If the Insureds feel that we are not in possession of all the facts, please inform us immediately. Please note that Florida Peninsula’s response is not necessarily exhaustive and does not preclude us from asserting any other valid reason for seeking rejection and return of the Civil Remedy Notice. Also, this letter or any act or failure to act on the part of Florida Peninsula or any agent or representative of Florida Peninsula should not be construed as a waiver of any rights or defenses available to it by contract or at law as all such rights and defenses are hereby specifically reserved. We trust that this response addresses the allegations of insurer violation alleged in the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation. Should you have any questions regarding this matter or need anything further, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Very Truly Yours, QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, WOOD & BOYER, P.A. Maya Thomas, Esq. Jose Bosch, Esq. CC: Joshua S. Smith, Esq. - jhoffman@smiththompsonlaw.coM
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