Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     784815
Filing Accepted:  9/28/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
FORTY-ONE HOSPITALITY, LLC DBA HOWARD JOHNSON INN   First Name  
Street Address * 4811 S CLEVELAND AVE
City, State Zip * FORT MYERS,, FL 33907
Email Address * YIA24@YOURINSURANCEATTORNEY.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   FORTY-ONE HOSPITALITY, LLC DBA HOWARD JOHNSON INN   First Name   PETER
Policy # * 1766181030 Claim #* 05000001561
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* DIAMOND First Name * PETER Initial A
Street Address* 2601 S. BAYSHORE DR, 5TH FL
City, State Zip* MIAMI , FL 33140
Email Address * PD@YOURINSURANCEATTORNEY.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   FRONTLINE INSURANCE UNLIMITED COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10074
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* LORI MILAND
Type of Insurance * Commercial 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)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
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.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

The entire policy is incorporated herein as a basis for the specific policy language for which is relevant to the violation.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Shortly after Hurricane Ian, the Insured filed an insurance claim against the insurer for various damages. The carrier acknowledged the claim and commenced claim investigation and adjustment. The insurer failed to make a claims determination within the prescribed statutory deadline and when the carrier did make payment, the claim payment was woefully deficient. In fact, the damages evaluated by the carrier are insultingly low. With regard to the damage to the insured property, the carrier turned a blind eye to reality and instead claimed to see/find $123,861.45 plus. Please note that the insured timely submitted a sworn statement in proof of loss totaling $3,863,299.93 in building damages. Moreover, the carrier did not issue any payment for the Building Property Damages or Business Interruption, despite the insured proving a sworn statement in proof of loss totaling $3,863,299.93. At all times material hereto, the insured complied with all insurer investigation requests including but not limited to submitting a Sworn Statement in of Loss Proof (SSPOL) along with all supporting documentation for the damages claimed in the SSPOL. Further and most recently, the insured, via its corporate representative, testified in an Examination Under Oath and explained every single issue raised herein, including all of the carrier’s failure to act in good faith toward the insured. Unfortunately, the carrier, refused and continues to refuse to fully indemnify the insured under the policy and that has created a financial hardship that could have otherwise been avoided by the carrier, had the carrier simply agreed to indemnify the insured for the full value of the loss. The carrier is not attempting and has not attempted, 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 the insured’s interests. As stated above, the carrier received the insured’s SSPOL as well as has the benefit of the Insured’s testimony (EUO). Since that time, the carrier has not issued full payment and instead has dragged its feet in adjusting the claim and more importantly resolving the claim. Simply put, the insured provided a SSPOL, along with all support, which clearly and unequivocally detailed all claimed damages to the carrier following the catastrophic damages caused by Hurricane Ian. Further the insured testified in an examination under oath and explained all of the financial hardships that the insured has suffered as a direct result of the carrier’s bad faith claims evaluation and handling. The carrier chose to lowball the insured and ignore the damages and support presented by the insured. Unfortunately, the carrier’s bad acts led to the carrier paying a lowball, fraction of the damages owed. This forced the insured to have to engage in the expense and time-consuming process of claim prosecution and this has been going on for over two years, with no end in sight and the carrier continues to delay claim adjustment in a designed effort to harm its own insured. The insured has suffered tremendously from the damage caused by Hurricane Ian and the carrier’s bad faith acts are further harming the insured. The carrier has completely failed to promptly settle the insured’s claim, despite a clear obligation to settle a claim should have become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage. The Carrier failed to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. The insured has been left in the dark regarding the end date for claim resolution and all along the carrier has not fully indemnified the insured who has suffered tremendous losses. The insurer should have recognized immediately that the insurer low balled the insured on claim value and should immediately tender payment for the full value of the claim. To cure this blatant bad faith claim handling, the insurer can immediately tender the following amount $3,739,438.48 for indemnity. Additionally, the insured seeks compensation for attorney's fees and costs of $380,000.00 as well as $100,000 for the bad faith delay and claims handling failures. Total Damages to resolve this entire CRN, conditioned on a release, is $4,219,438.48.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
sprice@zinoberdiana.com 11-27-2024 November 27, 2024 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING Florida Department of Financial Services Bureau of Consumer Services – Civil Remedy Larson Building, 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0322 RESPONSE TO CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE OF INSURER VIOLATION Re: Insured: Forty-One Hospitality LLC Insurer: Frontline Insurance Unlimited d/b/a Frontline Insurance DFS Filing No.: 784815 Filing Accepted: September 28, 2024 Claim No.: 05000001561 Policy No.: 1766181030 Dear Sir or Madam: The undersigned has the privilege of representing Frontline Insurance Unlimited d/b/a Frontline Insurance (“Frontline”) in the above-referenced matter. This correspondence constitutes Frontline’s formal response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation Number 784815 (“the Subject CRN”) filed on behalf of Forty-One Hospitality LLC (“Insured”). The Subject CRN was accepted by the Department on September 28, 2024. As a result, this response is timely under Florida Statutes. While Frontline welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Subject CRN, it must first note that the Subject CRN is not valid as it fails to comply with the specific requirements of Florida Statute § 624.155. See Neal v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 358 So. 3d 749, 750 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023). Frontline further specifically denies each and every allegation contained therein as said allegations relate to this claim. Further, the Subject CRN fails to comply with the specific information requirements as set forth in Florida Statute § 624.155 and Florida case law. Therefore, the Subject CRN is facially invalid, and it should be rejected and returned by the Department. The subject claim involves an alleged loss to the Insured Property that Insured claims occurred due to a hurricane windstorm on September 28, 2022. Following receipt of the claim, Frontline retained both an independent adjuster and an engineer to inspect the Insured Property and the claim decision was based on the totality of information obtained by Frontline including the inspections by the independent adjuster and the engineer. The Subject CRN cites several specific statutes Frontline has allegedly violated. While Frontline categorically and unequivocally denies violating any statutes, Frontline will briefly address the specific statutes alleged to have been violated, in an abundance of caution. § 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. Frontline denies this allegation and the Subject CRN sets forth no actual facts to support this allegation, only opinions as to how the claim should have been resolved. The Subject CRN also sets forth several inaccuracies and incomplete information regarding the claim based solely on unsupported opinions. Frontline retained an independent adjuster to inspect the insured property. Frontline also timely retained an engineer to inspect the insured property for the alleged claim. Frontline made a determination of coverage on this claim based on its good faith investigation and the terms and conditions of the subject policy. While Frontline has and continues to make a good faith attempt to investigate this claim and has and continues to act fairly and honestly towards the Insured and with due regard for the interests of the Insured, Frontline is also not obligated to settle a claim that is not covered under the terms, conditions and exclusions of the subject policy. The remainder of the Subject CRN simply states disparaging and unsubstantiated opinions regarding Frontline and its agents assisting in the investigation of the subject claim. Frontline acted in accordance with Florida Statute § 624.155(1)(b)(1) and has in no way violated said statutory provisions. § 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. Frontline denies this allegation and the Subject CRN sets forth no actual facts to support this allegation, only opinions as to how the claim should have been resolved. The Subject CRN also sets forth several inaccuracies and incomplete information regarding the claim based solely on unsupported opinions. Frontline retained an independent adjuster to inspect the insured property. Frontline also timely retained an engineer to inspect the insured property for the alleged claim. Frontline made a determination of coverage on this claim based on its good faith investigation and the terms and conditions of the subject policy. While Frontline has and continues to make a good faith attempt to investigate this claim and has and continues to act fairly and honestly towards the Insured and with due regard for the interests of the Insured, Frontline is also not obligated to settle a claim that is not covered under the terms, conditions and exclusions of the subject policy. The remainder of the Subject CRN simply states disparaging and unsubstantiated opinions regarding Frontline and its agents assisting in the investigation of the subject claim. Frontline acted in accordance with Florida Statute § 624.155(1)(b)(3) and has in no way violated said statutory provisions. § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. Frontline denies this allegation and the Subject CRN sets forth no actual facts to support this allegation, only opinions as to how the claim should have been resolved. The Subject CRN also sets forth several inaccuracies and incomplete information regarding the claim based solely on unsupported opinions. Frontline investigated this claim and communicated with the Insured and its representatives throughout. Frontline has and continues to act fairly and honestly towards the Insured and with due regard for the interests of the Insured. Frontline acted in accordance with Florida Statute § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) and has in no way violated said statutory provisions. § 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. Frontline denies this allegation and the Subject CRN sets forth no actual facts to support this allegation, only opinions as to how the claim should have been resolved. The Subject CRN also sets forth several inaccuracies and incomplete information regarding the claim based solely on unsupported opinions. Frontline retained an independent adjuster to inspect the insured property. Frontline also timely retained an engineer to inspect the insured property for the alleged claim. Frontline made a determination of coverage on this claim based on its good faith investigation and the terms and conditions of the subject policy. Frontline’s determination of coverage provided a reasonable explanation. While Frontline has and continues to make a good faith attempt to investigate this claim and has and continues to act fairly and honestly towards the Insured and with due regard for the interests of the Insured, Frontline is also not obligated to settle a claim that is not covered under the terms, conditions and exclusions of the subject policy. The remainder of the Subject CRN simply states disparaging and unsubstantiated opinions regarding Frontline and its agents assisting in the investigation of the subject claim. Frontline acted in accordance with Florida Statute §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e) and has in no way violated said statutory provisions. § 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 Frontline denies this allegation and the Subject CRN sets forth no actual facts to support this allegation, only opinions as to how the claim should have been resolved. The Subject CRN also sets forth several inaccuracies and incomplete information regarding the claim based solely on unsupported opinions. Frontline retained an independent adjuster to inspect the insured property. Frontline also timely retained an engineer to inspect the insured property for the alleged claim. Frontline made a determination of coverage on this claim based on its good faith investigation and the terms and conditions of the subject policy. Frontline’s determination of coverage provided a reasonable explanation. While Frontline has and continues to make a good faith attempt to investigate this claim and has and continues to act fairly and honestly towards the Insured and with due regard for the interests of the Insured, Frontline is also not obligated to settle a claim that is not covered under the terms, conditions and exclusions of the subject policy. The remainder of the Subject CRN simply states disparaging and unsubstantiated opinions regarding Frontline and its agents assisting in the investigation of the subject claim. Frontline acted in accordance with Florida Statute §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f) and has in no way violated said statutory provisions. Invalidity of the Subject CRN As initial matters, the Subject CRN does not properly identify the Insured. In fact, it states that the Insured is “PETER FORTY-ONE HOSPITALITY, LLC DBA HOWARD JOHNSON INN” instead of properly indicating that the Insured is “Forty-One Hospitality, LLC.” Accordingly, the Subject CRN is invalid and should be rejected. A Civil Remedy Notice must contain, among other things, the specific policy language that is relevant to the alleged violations and the facts and circumstances giving rise to the alleged violation. See Fla. Stat. § 624.155(3)(b). See also Pin-Pon Corp. v. Landmark Am. Ins. Co., 500 F. Supp. 3d 1336, 1340 (S.D. Fla. 2020). The Subject CRN merely states that it incorporates the entire policy by reference. The Subject CRN does not identify the specific policy language that is relevant to the alleged violations, since incorporating the entire policy is not specific. If Frontline allegedly violated specific terms of the insurance policy, the Subject CRN must include the “terms of the insurance coverage” Frontline has allegedly violated. This failure to identify specific policy provisions allegedly relevant to the purported violations prevents Frontline from addressing any issues regarding the policy and is a reason why it does not comply with § 624.155, Fla. Stat. Furthermore, contrary to the requirement to state with specificity the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation, as set forth in § 624.155(3)(b)(2), 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 no basis in fact or circumstances. The lack of any specific facts or circumstances in the Subject CRN is another reason why it does not comply with § 624.155, Fla. Stat. Finally, the Notice also contains “cures” that are not available under the subject policy of insurance or under the Civil Remedy Statute. Specifically, the Insured demands that Frontline pay amounts for attorney fees as well as amounts for bad faith. A cure for a CRN can only be premised on contractual amounts due and owing. Since there is no pre-suit statutory entitlement to attorneys’ fees and costs, the Insured’s “cure” is improper. Additionally, as there is no contractual amount due and owing for bad faith, Insured’s “cure” is improper. For the foregoing reasons, the CRN is deficient and must be rejected by the Department. The purpose of the Civil Remedy Notice is to facilitate and encourage good-faith efforts to timely settle claims before litigation, not to vindicate continuing efforts to delay. Neal v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., supra. As noted herein, Frontline is not obligated to settle any portion of a claim that is not covered under the terms, conditions and exclusions of the subject policy. Frontline asserts that this response is not necessarily exhaustive and does not preclude Frontline from asserting any other valid reason for seeking rejection and return of the Subject CRN. Also, this letter or any act or failure to act on the part of Frontline or any agent or representative of Frontline 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. Respectfully, ZINOBER, DIANA & MONTEVERDE, P.A. /s/Shannon Price, Esq. Michael A. Monteverde, Esq. Shannon Price, Esq. michael@zinoberdiana.com sprice@zinoberdiana.com CC: Peter Diamond, Esq.
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