Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     784817
Filing Accepted:  9/28/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
PROMENADES EAST CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.   First Name  
Street Address * 21405 OCEAN BOULEVARD
City, State Zip * PORT CHARTLOTTE, FL 33952
Email Address * PROMEAST@COMCAST.NET
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   PROMENADES EAST CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.   First Name  
Policy # * 7098288732 Claim #* 05000001349
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* CLAUSEN LOZIER First Name * GINA Initial
Street Address* 6803 LAKE WORTH RD., SUITE 310
City, State Zip* GREENACRES , FLORIDA 33467
Email Address * GCLAUSEN@CCATTORNEYS.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):* UNKNOWN
Type of Insurance * Commercial Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
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)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Frontline Insurance Unlimited Company d/b/a Frontline Insurance (the “Insurance Company”) issued policy of insurance number 7098288732 (the “Policy”) to Promenades East Condominium Association, Inc. (“Insured”) to provide coverage for all risks, including hurricane, to the property located at 21405 Olean Boulevard, Port Charlotte, FL 33952. (the “Property”). On or about September 28, 2022, the Property sustained damage as the result of Hurricane Ian. Although the Policy provides coverage for all of the losses, damages, and expenses the Insured suffered and incurred, the Insurance Company has failed to adequately compensate the Insured for the damage to the Property. The specific Policy language at issue includes, but may not be limited to, the following: e. Increased Cost Of Construction (7) With respect to this Additional Coverage: (a) We will not pay for the Increased Cost of Construction: (i) Until the property is actually repaired or replaced, at the same or another premises; and (ii) Unless the repairs or replacement are made as soon as reasonably possible after the loss or damage, not to exceed two years. We may extend this period in writing during the two years. (b) If the building is repaired or replaced at the same premises, or if you elect to rebuild at another premises, the most we will pay for the Increased Cost of Construction, subject to the provisions of e.(6) of this Additional Coverage, is the increased cost of construction at the same premises. (c) If the ordinance or law requires relocation to another premises, the most we will pay for the Increased Cost of Construction, subject to the provisions of e.(6) of this Additional Coverage, is the increased cost of construction at the new premise
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

The Insured timely reported its September 28, 2022, claim from Hurricane Ian to the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company acknowledged receipt of the claim and assigned claim number 05000001349. The Insurance Company acknowledged coverage for the loss but failed to fully and properly indemnify the Insured for its damages. Given the Insurer’s delay, the Insured unnecessarily spent copious amounts to perform temporary repairs when the Insurance Company could have and should have promptly and properly adjusted to claim according to policy standards and provisions. Moreover, the Insurance Company’s actions have caused the Insured to not be properly indemnified and therefore made it impossible for the Insured to fully and adequately repair or replace the property within two years of the date of the loss to recover all available coverages under the Policy. Accordingly, on June 13, 2024 the Insured requested an extension of the Policy’s two year requirement to make the repairs from the date of the loss in order to recover all available coverages. The Insurance Company refused to grant the Insured an extension of the Policy’s two-year requirement to make repairs therefore constructively denying the Insured of all coverages due, owing and available under the Policy. The actions taken by the Insurance Company in the handling and adjustment of the Insured’s claim are willful, wanton, and in disregard for the rights of the Insured, and have occurred with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice in violation of the law. The Insurance Company’s actions amount to, but are not limited to violating the following provisions. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. 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)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information. To cure the defects outlined above, the Insurance Company must: A. Grant a written extension of the Policy’s two-year requirement from the date of loss to repair or replace the property until September 28, 2026.
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: Promenades East Condominium Association, Inc. Insurer: Frontline Insurance Unlimited d/b/a Frontline Insurance DFS Filing No.: 784817 Filing Accepted: September 28, 2024 Claim No.: 05000001349 Policy No.: 7098288732 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 784817 (“the Subject CRN”) filed on behalf of Promenades East Condominium Association, Inc. (“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. Frontline promptly acknowledged the loss and sent the Insured correspondence advising them of the claims process. As part of its adjustment and investigation of the claim, Frontline retained an independent adjuster to inspect the property and document any damage observed. Based on the inspection of the independent adjuster, the terms and conditions of the subject policy, and the totality of the information provided to Frontline, on December 26, 2022, Frontline issued its initial coverage determination letter to Insured. That letter advised Insured that partial coverage was opened. Specifically, coverage for Location 1, Building 1, was opened in the amount of $493,572.52, however, no payment would be issued as it was less than the applicable deductible of $569,715.48. Additionally, coverage for Location 1, Building 2 was opened in the amount of $205,089.59 and after application of the deductible, payment was issued in the amount of $176,573.87. Frontline also provided the Insured with a copy of the estimate supporting its coverage determination. On or about February 24, 2023, the Insured submitted its Proof of Loss and Public Adjuster estimate prepared by Strategic Claim Consultants. Frontline promptly acknowledged receipt of the documents and advised that its investigation was ongoing. Upon receipt of the Public Adjuster’s estimate, Frontline conducted a supplemental coverage investigation, which included inspections by engineering firms Keystone Experts and Engineers, LLC and BSC Forensics, LLC. On March 23, 2023, Keystone Experts and Engineers, LLC conducted an inspection of the Property on behalf of Frontline with follow up inspections on June 19, 2023 and June 21, 2023. Property inspections by BSC Forensics, LLC were completed over multiple dates in September 2023 and October 2023. Thereafter, Frontline received an engineer report prepared by Trillas Consulting Engineers, submitted by the insured in support of the subject claim, as well as a supplemental estimate greatly increasing the scope of the Insured’s claim for damage to the windows and sliding glass doors. BSC Forensics, LLC, reviewed the Insured’s engineer’s report and prepared a supplemental report addressing same. Frontline’s building consultant, Young & Associates, prepared an estimate based on the inspection, observations, and conclusions of Frontline’s engineer and the totality of Frontline’s investigation to date. Frontline has also requested documents supporting the Insured’s claim and the Examination Under Oath of the Insured’s representative pursuant to the terms of the subject policy. The bulk of these documents were only just produced on February 21, 2024, February 29, 2024, and March 13, 2024. On April 15, 2024 counsel for Frontline took the Examination Under Oath of the designated representative of the named Insured. Based on the results of Frontline’s ongoing and extensive investigation of the subject claim and its consideration of the documents produced by the Insured, Frontline issued a supplemental coverage determination and payment. Frontline issued correspondence dated May 10, 2024 explaining its updated coverage position and referring to the applicable provisions of the subject policy. Frontline also again requested any invoices for work completed by the Insured which relate to the subject claim. Based on the totality of the information provided to Frontline, including the documentation Insured provided to Frontline pursuant to the May 10, 2024 letter, on September 11, 2024, Frontline issued its second supplemental coverage determination letter to the Insured. Frontline also issued supplemental checks to the Insured in the amount of $46,217.39 for building coverage and $1,695.94 for business personal property coverage. On June 14, 2024, Insured’s counsel emailed a letter, dated June 13, 2024, only to the former claims adjuster at Frontline, Carol Crump, requesting an extension for it to comply with the Policy’s Additional Coverage requirement to repair or replace the damaged property within two (2) years of the loss. Counsel for Insured failed to send it directly to Frontline nor to the claims adjuster, Jason Canipe, who had been assigned to the claim on March 14, 2024 and who was handling the claim during that time period. Insured and their counsel were aware that Jason Canipe was the claims adjuster at the time of this extension request letter submission. On October 21, 2024, counsel for Frontline was first made aware of and received the letter from Insured’s counsel. After review of the letter, dated June 13, 2024, counsel for Frontline prepared a letter, dated November 27, 2024, where it denied Insured’s request for an extension of time to complete the repairs and replacement of the damaged property from the claimed loss. The Insured previously filed a CRN, filing 746558 against Frontline for this instant claim on March 13, 2024. Frontline timely filed its response to that CRN. Unsatisfied with the response, Insured filed the instant CRN against Frontline. 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 professional engineers 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)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of 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 retained an independent adjuster to inspect the insured property. Frontline also timely retained professional engineers 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 § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) and has in no way violated said statutory provisions. § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information. 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 professional engineers to inspect the insured property for the alleged claim. Frontline also elected to take the Examination Under Oath of the Corporate Representative of the Insured, in order to obtain additional information. 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 §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) 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 person or persons representing Frontline who are most responsible for / knowledgeable of the facts giving rise to the allegations in the Subject CRN. Rather, it merely states “UNKNOWN”. As such, the Subject CRN is invalid and should be rejected. See Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. supra; Fonollosa v. Am. Integrity Ins. Co of Fla, 2021 Fla. Cir. LEXIS 5 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. 2021); Pin-Pon Corp. v. Landmark Ins. Co., supra. Additionally, the Subject CRN does not properly identify the Complainant’s address. In fact, it identifies the address as “Ocean Boulevard” when the Insured’s property is actually located on “Olean Boulevard.” 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). 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 Civil Remedy Statute. A cure for a CRN can only be premised on contractual amounts due and owing. Insured’s cure demand includes conduct that is so ambiguous and subjective that it would be impossible for Frontline to cure the CRN, to wit: A. Grant a written extension of the Policy’s two-year requirement from the date of loss to repair or replace the property until September 28, 2026. 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: Gina Clausen Lozier, 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