Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     786021
Filing Accepted:  10/7/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
ERIKA RODRIGUEZ   First Name  
Street Address * 2525 PEPPER MILL BLVD
City, State Zip * ORLANDO, FL 32837
Email Address * ERIKAMARIE571@GMAIL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   ERIKA RODRIGUEZ   First Name  
Policy # * SIC3143055 Claim #* 202406000791
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* FOSKY First Name * JORDON Initial
Street Address* 925 S. FEDERAL HWY
City, State Zip* BOCA RATON , FL 33432
Email Address * JFOSKY@KPATTORNEY.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   SLIDE INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 17227
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* NITA IPSALE
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
Unfair Trade Practice
Claim Denial
* 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.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Loss settlement provision
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

The carrier was immediately put on notice of the insureds’ property damage claim. Subsequently, the insureds prepared a loss package in the amount of $39,705.99 needed to restore the property back to its pre-loss condition. Whereas, the carrier has failed to prudently inspect the insureds’ property, come to a fair coverage determination and promptly pay the claim. The carrier improperly determined that the loss was not covered under the policy and wrongfully denied the claim. In turn, the insureds have complied with all of the carrier’s requests to date and the carrier has still failed to treat this claim with good faith. This intentional delay with the claim has led to direct prejudice of the insureds. About one hundred and ten days have passed since the original date of loss. The carrier has still refused to pay the fully covered amount owed under the policy. The carrier is aware of the damage sustained by the insured’s property and has not taken any meaningful ensuing action. It is clear that the carrier is not treating the insureds with good faith claims conduct; failing to pay a claim clearly owed; not adjusting the claim and evaluating the loss properly, promptly and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to the insureds; failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims by its adjusters and placing the company’s interests before the insureds’ interests; refusing to pay the full amount owed to the insureds despite the fact that the carrier has been on notice of the damages and looking for ways to delay full recovery or any recovery to the insureds, when a reasonable carrier in a similar position would have tendered a full payment in accordance with both the policy language and statutory requirements. The carrier’s actions are in violation of Florida Statutes §§ 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a); 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), as well as Section I- Perils Insured Against, subsection 1, providing coverage for direct loss to property unless the damage was caused solely by an excluded or excepted cause of loss; and the loss payment provision under Section I- Conditions requiring payment of a claim within 90 days. All the aforementioned are part of what appears to be an ongoing pattern and practice of behavior of the carrier that it demonstrates a wanton and reckless disregard for the insureds’ rights and a pattern and practice of bad faith claims practices to its insureds across the state of Florida. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, the carrier must: 1.) Pay the complete covered loss in the amount of $39,705.99, less any prior payments and less any applicable policy deductible; and 2.) Pay the statutory interest on the amount of unpaid damages from the date of loss to the date payment is finally made. A copy of this letter and filed form submitted to the FDFS has been sent to the carrier. Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned or Devin Pruitt at (561)-892- 6829 if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Jordon Fosky Attorney at Law
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
ebrooksherproperty@kpattorney.com 08-08-2025 This filed Civil Remedy Notice is hereby withdrawn pursuant to a settlement agreement between the claimant and the insurance carrier
mthornton@slideinsurance.com 12-03-2024 Via E-mail & Posting on DFS Website Jordon Fosky, Esq. Kanner & Pintaluga 925 S Federal Hwy Boca Raton, FL 33432 jfosky@kpattorney.com Complainant: Erika Rodriguez Insured: Erika Rodriguez Claim No: 202406000791 Policy No: SIC3143055 CRN Filing No.: 786021 Dear Jordon Fosky: Please allow this correspondence to serve as Slide Insurance Company’s (“Slide”)’s response to the Civil Remedy Notice (“CRN”) filed on behalf of Erika Rodriguez (“Insured”). The CRN was accepted by the Department on October 7, 2024. Without waiving any objections to the sufficiency of the CRN, and specifically subject to a reservation of all rights and defenses herein, Slide denies all allegations that it violated Florida Statutes or other codes, regulations, and/or rules in this matter. Slide challenges the validity of the CRN as it fails to identify the specific policy terms the Insured claims Slide failed to follow, nor do the allegations as stated give rise to any violation of Florida law or insurance policy. See, e.g., Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So.3d 875, 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021); Demase v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company, 351 So.3d 136, 138-39 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022) (holding the trial court properly determined a civil remedy notice that failed to state with specificity the relevant policy language was legally insufficient). In fact, the CRN is devoid of any facts specific to the underlying claim, including the alleged cause of the loss, important dates, and damages. Thus, the CRN is deficient. CLAIM FACTS Slide issued a homeowners’ insurance policy to the Insured for property located at 2525 Pepper Mill Boulevard, Orlando, Florida, in effect for the period of June 8, 2024 to June 8, 2025, (the “Policy”). On June 21, 2024, the Insured filed a claim for damage to their property due to a collapsed pool cage. The date of loss was reported as June 20, 2024. Slide acknowledged receipt of the claim and assigned a licensed field adjuster to inspect the property. The Insured and the field adjuster were present for the inspection on June 24, 2024. At the inspection, the Insured stated the aluminum screened enclosure fell and pulled away from the house. A licensed engineer, Grindley Williams Engineering (“Engineer”), was retained to further evaluate the cause and scope of the reported damage. Based on their on-site assessment of the property, the Engineer concluded deficiencies in prior modifications made to the screened enclosure and the accrued weight and moisture in the gutters from inadequate maintenance which exceeded the fasteners’ capacity caused the screened enclosure to collapse. No damage was observed to the shingle roof or interior of the property. In a letter dated July 26, 2024, the Insured was advised the reported damage was due to faulty construction and/or modification of their screened enclosure and inadequate maintenance, which are excluded under their Policy. Therefore, the claim was precluded from coverage under the Policy’s terms, conditions, exclusions, and limitations. An explanation of the coverage decision was sent to the Insured in accordance with the Policy and Florida Statute. No further communication was received from the Insured or their representatives until receipt of a letter of representation from attorney Jordon Fosky with Kanner & Pintaluga on or about September 30, 2024. The desk adjuster assigned to the claim acknowledged receipt of the letter of representation, provided copies of the coverage explanation letter and Policy, and requested estimates regarding the Insured’s claims. No further documentation was submitted. Rather, the instant Civil Remedy Notice and a Property Insurance Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation (“Notice of Intent”) were filed on the Insured’s behalf on October 7, 2024 and October 9, 2024, respectively. To date, no information has been presented by the Insured or their representatives that would alter Slide’s understanding of the loss or coverage. Slide maintains that it has acted in accordance with the terms of the subject insurance policy and the law in its adjustment of the claim. The facts and circumstances set forth in the CRN are misleading, vague, and incomplete. The Insured has presented no evidence to support the allegations of claim denial, claim delay, or unfair trade practice. Rather, the facts show Slide promptly investigated the loss and made communications as necessary to adjust the claim, in compliance with the Policy and Florida Statute. DENIAL OF ALL VIOLATIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTE The CRN asserts Slide violated §§ 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), Fla. Stats. Notwithstanding any challenges to the CRN’s legal sufficiency, and specifically subject to a reservation of all defenses and/or rights, Slide categorically denies all violations of Florida Statutes or any other codes, regulations, and/or rules in its handling of the subject loss. The underlying claim was adjusted in as thorough and expedient a manner as possible. The facts demonstrate Slide employed proper claims practices in the investigation including, but not limited to, a prompt inspection of the Insured’s property, retention of necessary experts, and timely communications with the Insured and/or their representatives. Following the adjustment of the claim, the Insured was advised in writing of the coverage decision and basis for same. Upon receipt of correspondence from the Insured via their attorney notifying Slide of a dispute with the coverage decision, Slide reopened the claim for further investigation. Again, the Insured was provided with a letter explaining the coverage decision, facts underlying the coverage assessment, and relevant Policy provisions precluding coverage. Thus, the statutory violations asserted in the CRN are baseless and Slide asserts strict compliance with its statutory obligations. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the documented facts contradict all allegations that Slide has in any manner acted improperly or contrary to its contractual obligations to the Insured. In filing this response, Slide does not intend to waive any rights or defenses that it may have in law or the policy. Rather, Slide expressly reserves all such rights and defenses without exception or limitation. Should there be any questions or further inquiry with respect to this matter, please contact the undersigned at mthornton@slideinsurance.com. Sincerely, /s/ Marianne Thornton Marianne Thornton, Esq. Staff Counsel
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