Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     786205
Filing Accepted:  10/8/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SARASOTA AND DESOTO COUNTIES, INC.   First Name  
Street Address * 3100 FRUITVILLE ROAD
City, State Zip * SARASOTA, FL 34237
Email Address * JDTEAM@MERLINLAWGROUP.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SARASOTA AND DESOTO COUNTIES, INC.   First Name  
Policy # * 3004633594 Claim #* 05000001071
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* DELGADO First Name * JAVIER Initial
Street Address* 777 S. HARBOUR ISLAND BLVD, SUITE 950
City, State Zip* TAMPA , FLORIDA 33602
Email Address * JDELGADO@MERLINLAWGROUP.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):* CAVIN CURTIS (FRONTLINE INDEPENDENT COMMERCIAL CLAIMS ADJUSTER); LORI MILAND (FRONTLINE SENIOR COMMERCIAL CLAIMS SPECIALIST); TED SMITH (FRONTLINE COMMERCIAL CLAIMS ADJUSTER); RON TATUM (PILOT CATASTROPHE SERVICES, INC. INDEPENDENT ADJUSTER), PILOT C
Type of Insurance * Commercial Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Other : Failure to Properly Investigate Claim with Due Regard to Insured’s Interest
* 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.
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.

BUILDING AND PERSONAL PROPERTY COVERAGE FORM A. Coverage We will pay for direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property at the premises described in the Declarations caused by or resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss. 2. Property Not Covered Covered Property does not include q. The following property while outside the buildings: (2) Fences, radio or television antennas (including satellite dishes) and their lead-in wiring, masts or towers, trees, shrubs or plants (other than “stock” of trees, shrubs or plants), all except as provided in the Coverage Extensions. BUILDING AND PERSONAL PROPERTY COVERAGE FORM – CP 00 10 06 07 e. Increased Cost Of Construction (1) This Additional Coverage applies only to buildings to which the Replacement Cost Optional Coverage applies. (2) ln the event of damage by a Covered Cause of Loss to a building that is Covered Property, we will pay the increased costs incurred to comply with enforcement of an ordinance or law in the course of repair, rebuilding or replacement of damaged parts of that property, subject to the limitations stated in e.(3) through e.(9) of this Additional Coverage. (3) The ordinance or law referred to in e.(2) of this Additional Coverage is an ordinance or law that regulates the construction or repair of buildings or establishes zoning or land use requirements at the described premises, and is in force at the time of loss. *** G. Optional Coverages … 3. Replacement Cost a. Replacement Cost (without deduction for depreciation) replaces Actual Cash Value in the Valuation Loss Condition of this Coverage Form b. This Optional Coverage does not apply to: (1) Personal property of others; (2) Contents of a residence; (3) Works of art, antiques or rare articles, including etchings, pictures, statuary, marbles, bronzes, porcelains and bric-a-brac; or Under the terms of this Replacement Cost Optional Coverage, personal property Owned indivisibly by all unit-owners, and the Property covered under Paragraph A.1.a.(6) Of this Coverage Form, are not considered to be the personal property of others. c. You may make a claim for loss or damage covered by this insurance on an actual cash value basis instead of on a replacement cost basis. In the event you elect to have loss or damage settled on an actual cash value basis, you may still make a claim for the additional coverage this Optional Coverage provides if you notify us of your intent to do so within 180 days after the loss or damage. d. We will not pay on a replacement cost basis for any loss or damage: (1) Until the lost or damaged property is actually repaired or replaced; and (2) Unless the repairs or replacement are made as soon as reasonably possible after the loss or damage. *** BUSINESS AND PERSONAL PROPERTY COVERAGE FORM * * * * E. Loss Conditions The following conditions apply in addition to the Common Policy Conditions and the Commercial Policy Conditions. * * * * 3. Duties In The Event Of Loss Or Damage a. You must see that the following are done in the event of loss or damage to Covered Property. * * * * (6) As often as may be reasonably required, permit us to inspect the property proving the loss or damage and examine your books and records. Also permit us to take samples of damaged and undamaged property for inspection, testing and analysis, and permit us to make copies from your books and records. * * * * (8) Cooperate with us in the investigation or settlement of the Claim (CP 00 10 06 07 p. 9-10 of 15) * * * * 4. Loss Payment a. ln the event of loss or damage covered by this Coverage Form, at our option, we will either: (1) Pay the value of lost or damaged property; (2) Pay the cost of repairing or replacing the lost or damaged property, subject to b. below; (3) Take all or any part of the property at an agreed or appraised value; or (4) Repair, rebuild or replace the property with other property of like kind and quality, subject to b, below. We will determine the value of lost or damaged property, or the cost of its repair or replacement, in accordance with the applicable terms of the Valuation Condition in this Coverage Form or any applicable provision which amends or supersedes the Valuation Condition. b. The cost to repair, rebuild or replace does not include the increased cost attributable to enforcement of any ordinance or law regulating the construction, use or repair of any property. c. We will give notice of our intentions within 30 days after we receive the sworn proof of loss. *** g. We will pay for covered loss or damage within 30 days after we receive the sworn proof of loss, if you have complied with all of the terms of this Coverage Part and: (1) We have reached agreement with you on the amount of loss; or (2) An appraisal award has been made. *** BUSINESS INCOME (AND EXTRA EXPENSE COVERAGE FORM * * * * C. Loss Conditions The following conditions apply in addition to the Common Policy Conditions and the Commercial Policy Conditions. * * * * 2. Duties In The Event Of Loss a. You must see that the following are done in the event of loss. * * * * (5) As often as may be reasonably required, permit us to inspect the property proving the loss or damage and examine your books and records. Also permit us to take samples of damaged and undamaged property for inspection, testing and analysis, and permit us to make copies from your books and records. * * * * (7) Cooperate with us in the investigation or settlement of the Claim (8) If you intend to continue your business, you must resume all or part of your "operations" as quickly as possible. (CP 00 10 30 06 07 p. 5 of 9) CAUSES OF LOSS – WINDSTROM OR HAIL FORM A. Covered Causes of Loss When Wind is shown in the Covered Causes of Loss section of the Declarations, Covered Causes of Loss means the following: Windstorm or Hail, but not including: Loss or damage to the interior of any building or structure, or the property inside the building or structure, caused by rain, snow, sleet, sand, dust or by falling objects, whether driven by windstorm or not, unless the direct force of windstorm or hail first damages the building or structure causing an opening in the roof, walls, doors, or windows, and the rain, snow, sleet, sand, dust or falling objects enters through this opening.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

This Civil Remedy Notice is made on behalf of BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SARASOTA AND DESOTO COUNTIES, INC (the “INSURED”). In consideration of premium paid to it by the INSURED, FRONTLINE INSURANCE UNLIMITED D/B/A FRONTLINE INSURANCE (“FRONTLINE”) issued a commercial policy, bearing policy number 3004633594, which provided coverage for the below premises (collectively referred to as the “Property”) as shown in the Declaration page: Covered Premises Location Address Building Coverage Bldg. Deductible BPP – Contents Limit of Liability BPP Deductible Loc. 1 – Bldg. 1 3100 Fruitville Rd, Sarasota, FL 34237 $4,877,016 $243,850.80 $520,741 $26,037.05 Loc.2 – Bldg. 1 3130 Fruitville Rd, Sarasota, FL 34237 $381,685 $19,084.25 $153,656 $7,682.80 Covered Premises Location Address Building Coverage Bldg. Deductible BPP – Contents Limit of Liability BPP Deductible Loc. 3 – Bldg. 1 6851 S Biscayne Drive North Port, FL 34287 $769,080.00 $38,454.00 $39, 621 $1,981.05 Loc.3 – Bldg. 2 6851 S Biscayne Drive, North Port, FL 34287 $43,024 $2,151.20 Loc.3 – Bldg. 3 6851 S Biscayne Drive , North Port, FL 34287 (Gym) $1,310,400 $65,520.00 $13,168 $658.40 Loc.3 – Bldg. 4 6851 S Biscayne Drive , North Port, FL 34287 $439,370 $21,968.50 $22,286 $1,114.30 Covered Premises Location Building Coverage Bldg. Deductible BPP – Contents Limit of Liability BPP Deductible Loc. 4 – Bldg. 1 1790 21st Street Sarasota, FL 34234 $2,990,000 $149,500 $222,031 $11,101.55 Covered Premises Location Building Coverage Bldg. Deductible BPP – Contents Limit of Liability BPP Deductible Loc. 5 – Bldg. 1 920 Gulf Coast Boulevard Venice, FL 34285 $3,808,600 $190,430 $459,009 $22,950.45 Covered Premises Location Building Coverage Bldg. Deductible BPP – Contents Limit of Liability BPP Deductible Loc. 6 – Bldg. 1 18 School Avenue Arcadia, FL 34266 $50,000.00 $2,500 Loc. 6 – Bldg. 2 18 School Avenue Arcadia, FL 34266 (gymnasium) $1,000,000 $50,000 The policy was in full force and effect with an effective policy period of October 1, 202, to October 1, 2022. The policy provides coverage on a replacement cost basis, subject to a 5% deductible. The policy further provides coverage for Ordinance or Law and Additional Coverage for Fungus/Mold with a sublimit of $15,000. There is no dispute that the policy was in full force and effect at the time of the loss. On September 28, 2022, the INSURED suffered damage to the Property as a result of Hurricane Ian. The windstorm caused direct physical damage to the Property including but not limited to, opening to the roofing systems, exterior walls, windows, and doors, which resulted in wind-driven rain entering the buildings causing damage to the interior units and common areas. The Policy is an all-risk policy. This means the policy covers all direct physical loss to the Property unless otherwise excluded. Under an all-risk policy, once the covered Property suffers a loss and it is reported to the insurance company, the responsibility to determine the cause(s) of loss and the amount of damage falls to the insurer. If an exclusion in the Policy applies, it is up to the insurer to investigate and determine what specific damage is excluded from coverage and the balance of the claim should be paid timely. The INSURED timely reported the damage to FRONTLINE. FRONTLINE acknowledged the claim and assigned claim number 05000001071 to the loss. On or about October 6, 2022, as part of its investigation, FRONTLINE engaged the services of an independent adjusting company, Pilot Catastrophe Services, Inc. (“Pilot”), to inspect the loss, photograph the damages, and write an estimate for repairs. Ron Tatum of Pilot Catastrophe Services, Inc. inspected the buildings on or about October 18, 2022. After his inspection, Mr. Tatum prepared a damage repair estimate dated December 29, 2022, for $187,734.71 replacement cost value (“RCV”) and $164,716.36 actual cash value (“ACV”). On January 1, 2023, FRONTLINE informed the INSURED that it had completed the investigation and that it afforded coverage for wind related damage to three (3) buildings only. Based on its field adjuster’s estimate, FRONTLINE issued payment totaling $89,978.19, after the application of the deductible and recoverable depreciation. FRONTLINE’s coverage decision was as follows: Building Coverage: Location 3 Building 1 (6851 Biscayne Dr., North Port, FL) Replacement Cost Value $109,824.05 Less Depreciation ($17,018.41) Less Deductible ($38,454.00) Less Prior Payments (0.00 Net Claim $54,351.64 Building Coverage: Location 3 Building 4 (6851 Biscayne Dr., North Port, FL) Replacement Cost Value $62,867.64 Less Depreciation ($5,274.59) Less Deductible (21,968.50) Less Prior Payments: ($0.00) Net Claim $35,624.55 FRONTLINE also acknowledged wind damage to Location 5-Building 1 (920 Gulf Coast Blvd., Venice, FL), in the amount of $8,035.02 RCV, However, it determined that the damage to this location did not exceed the deductible. Though FRONTLINE’s field adjuster observed interior water damage to the ceiling to Location 4-Building 1 (1790 21st Street, Sarasota, FL 34234), the field adjuster concluded that the damage was not the result of a storm created opening. Thus, FRONTLINE not only denied coverage for damage to the roofing system and the building’s exterior, but it also inaccurately determined that the interior ensuing water loss is not covered under the Policy’s Building and Personal Coverage Clause. Moreover, FRONTLINE stated that its field adjuster did not observe storm related damages to: (1) Location 1- Building 1 (3100 Fruitville Road, Sarasota, FL); (2) Location 3-Building 2 (6851 S Biscayne Drive, North Port, FL 34287), and (3) Location 6-Building 2 (18 School Avenue, Arcadia, FL). The independent adjuster’s estimate raises significant questions that the insurer and claim handler must address prior to relying on the estimate to determine all owed damages. FRONTLINE failed to hire qualified engineer(s) and/or building consultant(s) to evaluate the INSURED’s structures for wind related damage and to opine on the origin and causation of the damage. FRONTLINE further failed to address or adjust the INSURED’s claim for Business Personal Property. As a result, FRONTLINE made a coverage determination based on an incomplete investigation The INSURED disputed FRONTLINE’s under-scoping and under-estimating of the damages and incurred the costs of retaining expert assistance and retained Phoenix Claims Consulting (“PHOENIX”) to assist in the further adjustment of the loss. On February 14, 2023, PHOENIX on INSURED’s behalf requested that FRONTLINE provide the INSURED with its independent adjuster’s estimate, photographs taken during FRONTLINE’s inspection of the Property, copies of all correspondence between FRONTLINE and the INSURED, and all expert or third-party reports used by FRONTLINE in the investigation and determination of the claim. On February 21, 2023, FRONTLINE acknowledged receipt of the INSURED’s public adjuster’s Letter of Representation advising FRONTLINE that there were damages at the various loss locations not previously addressed at the initial inspection. FRONTLINE engaged the services of Signature Adjusting Services (“SAS”) to conduct a re-inspection. FRONTLINE further retained SDII Global Corporation (“SDII”) to determine if any of the buildings sustained structural damage from Hurricane Ian and to evaluate the damage to the roofs. On May 4, 2023, the INSURED’s public adjuster provided FRONTLINE with an environmental report and assessment and requested that the INSURED be reimbursed for the costs incurred associated with this report. Additionally, the public adjuster confirmed the re-inspection requested from FRONTLINE. On May 18, 2024, FRONTLINE stated that it would not issue a reimbursement for the invoice from ETA for $19,090.00 for the assessment at the loss locations because it was pending the results of the independent adjuster/engineer re-inspection at the property. A joint re-inspection by FRONTLINE’s field adjuster, SDII’s engineer, and the INSURED’s public adjuster took place on May 25, 2023. FRONTLINE completed its investigation of the claim for coverage for water damage to Business Personal Property nearly 19 months after the claim was first reported. On June 7, 2024, FRONTLINE acknowledged that damages to the Business Personal Property at Locations 3 – 1 and 3 – 4 located at 6851 S Biscayne Drive, North Port, Florida was due to rainwater entering the roof through wind created openings and afforded coverage in the amount of $45,790.26 on actual cash value basis. On August 8, 2023, after the joint reinspection of the property, FRONTLINE issued a supplemental payment for the buildings in the net amount of $21,957.34. Having received its engineer’s findings, the INSURED’s public adjuster again inquired about the reimbursement for the ETA invoice. FRONTLINE set the stage to deny these costs incurred by the INSURED asking if “anyone from Frontline request that the reports be done, or do you have any approvals from Frontline that the cost of the reports would be covered?” Though the supplemental undisputed payment of $21,957.34 was still deficient, this is further evidence that FRONTLINE’s investigation was incomplete and inconsistent with the damage the Property sustained during Hurricane Ian. FRONTLINE improperly delayed the INSURED’s insurance claim, improperly denied payments for the full amounts owed under the policy, and otherwise engaged in unfair general business practices in the handling of the INSURED’S claim. Even though FRONTLINE had not properly investigated and/or paid the loss, the INSURED agreed to participate in the appraisal process to its financial detriment. FRONTLINE’s ultimate liability to the INSURED for the Hurricane Ian loss and the extent of damages were established the Appraisal Award as follows: Appraisal Award Type of Damage RCV Depreciation ACV Location 3-3 - (6851 S Biscayne Dr Northport, FL) Gym $743,314.67 $21,805.00 $721,509.67 Location 5-1 (920 Gulf Coast Blvd Venice FL) $785,574.04 $32,384.75 $753,189.29 Location 2-1 - (3130 Fruitville Rd., Sarasota, FL) $12,000.00 $0.00 $12,000.00 Location 1-1 - (3100 Fruitville Rd., Sarasota, FL) $916,675.60 $9,401.80 $907,273.80 Location 4-1 - (1790 21st St Sarasota, FL) $607,738.39 $38,837.50 $568,900.89 Location - 6-2 (18 School Ave., Arcadia, FL) $71,419.96 $488.90 $70,931.06 Business Personal Property Loc 3-4 $37,393.04 $1,981.30 $35,411.74 Mold Remediation - Loc 3-4 $15,000.00 $0.00 $15,000.00 Location - 3-1 (6861 S Biscayne Dr, Northport, FL) Admin $459,912.82 $6,068.97 $453,843.85 Location -3-4 (6861 Biscayne Dr., Northport, FL) Teen $209,503.88 $9,028.67 $200,475.21 Business Personal Property Loc 3-1 $13,588.88 $115.01 $13,473.87 TOTALS $3,872,121.28 $120,111.90 $3,752,009.38 To date, the INSURED has done all things legally required of it, including, but not limited to providing access to the Property as often as FRONTLINE required, providing damage repair estimate, engineers’ reports, and responding to requests for information. Any further compliance with the policy provisions has been waived by FRONTLINE. FRONTLINE failed to carry out its contractual, statutory, regulatory, and ethical duties in adjusting the INSURED’s claim. FRONTLINE violated §624.155(1)(b)(3), Fla. Stat., when it failed to promptly settle the claim when the obligation to settle had become reasonably clear. This is evidenced by the fact that FRONTLINE ignored covered damages based on the engineers’ reports, estimates, and photographs, the INSURED submitted to FRONTLINE to aid it in the adjustment of the claim. On information and belief, FRONTLINE implemented a claims handling program that was designed to encourage FRONTLINE’s adjusters, investigators, and employees to delay and deny claims and to pay less than the value of the claim. FRONTLINE’s conduct was designed to obtain an unfair advantage over its insureds. Had FRONTLINE done a proper investigation and had it hired qualified consultants from the inception of the claim, FRONTLINE would not have delayed claim resolution or ignored covered damages to the INSURED’s detriment. Pursuant to FRONTLINE’s demand, the INSURED was forced to retain the services of an attorney to protect its contractual right, engineer(s), and a public adjuster to provide details about material aspects of the claim, including cause of loss as well as claimed damages. FRONTLINE violated section 624.155(1)(b)(1), Fla. Stat., when it failed to attempt in good faith to settle the claim 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 its interests. Specifically, had FRONTLINE acted fairly and honestly toward the INSURED and with due regard for its interest FRONTLINE would have attempted to settle the claim with the public adjuster and/or participated in appraisal pursuant to the terms of the policy. FRONTLINE has ignored covered damages during the investigation of the claim and refused to re-inspect the Property upon receiving additional information from its insured. FRONTLINE engaged in the above-described conduct so often as to constitute a general business practice. FRONTLINE’s conduct was designed to enhance FRONTLINE’s profits to the detriment of FRONTLINE’s policyholders. All such actions were conducted intentionally, maliciously, or in reckless disregard of the rights of the INSURED’s and other policyholders. Within every insurance policy is an implicit duty of good faith and fair dealing. This duty of good faith obligates the insurer to handle its insured’s claims with “the same degree of care and diligence as a person of ordinary care and prudence should exercise in the management of his own business.” Boston Old Colony Ins. Co. v. Gutierrez, 386 So.2d 783 (Fla. 1980). FRONTLINE had a duty to act in good faith and with due regard for the interests of the INSURED but failed to do so. Even though the INSURED has complied with all other post loss obligations under the Policy, FRONTLINE continues to delay undisputed payment to the INSURED that is due and owing under the Policy. To date, FRONTLINE has failed and/or refused to provide the INSURED with all the insurance benefits due and owing, despite knowing that the INSURED has sustained covered damages to the insured Property. Despite the INSURED’s repeated pleas, FRONTLINE has not paid any amount needed to repair the Property. The adjusters assigned to this claim have a duty to adjust and treat all claims equally. Since the beginning of this claim, the representatives on behalf of FRONTLINE have approached this investigation in a manner prejudicial to the INSURED. FRONTLINE has a contractual obligation not to make a perfunctory investigation, and to not ignore evidence that would support the INSURED’s claim. This is a breach of the Policy. FRONTLINE has a contractual obligation not to look the other way when confronted with facts revealing the possibility of coverage and resisting reasonable interpretations of its policy. This is a breach of the Policy. This notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by Florida Statute, including any and all bad faith/extra contractual, should FRONTLINE fail to cure the violations set forth in this Civil Remedy Notice within the given cure period. While no specific “cure amount” is required for this Civil Remedy Notice to be valid, the INSURED will consider the allegations contained herein “cured” if FRONTLINE issues the following payments without a request for release from the INSURED: (1) Immediately tenders to the INSURED payment pursuant to the Appraisal Award for buildings and business personal property in the amount of $3,752,009.38 ACV, after application of the deductible and prior payment. (2) Immediately tenders to the INSURED payment for recoverable depreciation for $120,111.90 as determined by the Appraisal Award. (3) Immediately tenders to the INSURED payment for the actual costs incurred for the appraisal process in the amount of $225,659.94. (4) Immediately tenders to the INSURED payment for public adjuster’s fee for $277,860.37. (5) Immediately tenders to the INSURED payment for attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $8,600.00 (6) Immediately tenders to the INSURED the amount of statutory interest pursuant to §627.70131(7)(a), Fla. Stat., for the undisputed payment of $21,957.34 issued on August 8, 2023. (7) Immediately tenders to the INSURED the amount of statutory interest pursuant to §627.70131(7)(a), Fla. Stat., for the undisputed payment of $45,790.26 for Business Personal Property loss issued June 7, 2024. INSURED continues to remain open to a fair and reasonable settlement offer from FRONTLINE in an effort to avoid additional delay, costs and expenses, and hereby requests the same prior to the expiration of the statutory “cure” period. FRONTLINE must act fairly and honestly in its response to the INSURED’s request for a prompt, fair and reasonable settlement offer and resolution of its claim.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
kaley@bcflalaw.com 12-06-2024 December 6, 2024 VIA EMAIL: Boys & Girls Clubs of Sarasota and Desoto Counties, Inc. c/o Javier Delgado jdelgado@merlinlawgroup.com RE: Policyholder: Boys & Girls Clubs of Sarasota/Desoto Counties, Inc. Claim Number: 05000001071 Policy Number: 3004633594 CRN Filing: 786205 Dear Mr. Delgado: This is the formal response of Frontline Insurance Unlimited Company (“Frontline”) to the purported Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (“Purported Notice”) that was filed on behalf of Boys & Girls Clubs of Sarasota and Desoto Counties, Inc. The Florida Department of Financial Services accepted the Purported Notice, in form only, on October 8, 2024. The Purported Notice was filed in connection with the above-referenced insurance claim for property damage. The Purported Notice names Frontline and alleges claim delay, unsatisfactory settlement offer, and failure to properly investigate claim with due regard to insured’s interest, supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1) and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), Florida Statutes. The Purported Notice is a legal nullity for the reasons discussed below. Frontline reserves all (and waives none) of its rights or defenses, including its right to assert additional deficiencies in the Purported Notice. Under Section 624.155(3), Florida Statutes, a claimant must file a notice with the Florida Department of Financial Services (“the Department”) at least 60 days before filing a Statutory “bad faith” lawsuit. This notice is commonly referred to as a “civil remedy notice” (“CRN”). Section 624.155(3), Florida Statutes sets out five pieces of information which must be included in a CRN: 1. The statutory provision, including the specific language of the statute, which the authorized insurer allegedly violated; 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation; 3. The name of any individual involved in the violation; 4. Reference to specific policy language that is relevant to the violation, if any. If the person bringing the civil action is a third party claimant, she or he shall not be required to reference the specific policy language if the authorized insurer has not provided a copy of the policy to the third party claimant pursuant to written request; and 5. A statement that the notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section. The statute also provides that, in addition to these five requirements, the CRN shall be “on a form provided by the [Department] and shall state with specificity . . . such other information as the department may require.” (emphasis added); The Florida Supreme Court has held that Section 624.155, Florida Statutes “must be strictly construed.” Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1283 (Fla. 2000). Strict construction is appropriate as “this statute is in derogation of the common law.” Id. When interpreting a statute in derogation of the common law, “[a] court will presume that such a statute was not intended to alter the common law other than as clearly and plainly specified in the statute.” Time Ins. Co., Inc. v. Burger, 712 So. 2d 389, 393 (Fla. 1998). Accordingly, such an interpretation would mean that statutory bad faith cases cannot proceed unless the claimant has specifically complied will all statutory requirements. After the promulgation of this statute, the Department created a CRN form: Form DFS-10-363. Form DFS-10-363 lays out 15 requirements: 1. Complainants Name; 2. Complainants Address; 3. Complainants E-mail address; 4. Complainant type (Insured or otherwise); 5. Insured’s Name; 6. Insurance Policy Number; 7. Insurance Claim Number; 8. Attorney’s Name; 9. Attorney’s Address; 10. Attorney’s E-mail Address; 11. Type of Insurer (authorized or otherwise); 12. Name of Insurer; 13. Address of Insurer; 14. Type of Insurance (Commercial Property & Casualty or otherwise); and 15. Reason for Notice. As these requirements are all information required by the Department, according to Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, they each must be stated with specificity. Deficiency #1 Section 624.155(3)(b)(4), Florida Statutes, requires the CRN to reference specific policy language that is relevant to the violation, if any. If the person bringing the civil action is a third-party claimant, she or he shall not be required to reference the specific policy language if the authorized insurer has not provided a copy of the policy to the third-party claimant pursuant to written request. Your client is not a third-party claimant; therefore, the Purported Notice must include specific language from the subject policy that is relevant to the alleged violations. It does not. First, the Purported Notice cites a provision that is not contained in the subject policy, making it impossible to identify the specific policy language that is relevant to the alleged violations. Specifically, the Purported Notice cites language from a “CP 00 10 30 06 07” Endorsement which is not listed on the policy’s declarations page or contained within the policy package. In addition, the Purported Notice cites nearly every heading and coverage section in the policy in “shotgun style,” again making it impossible to identify the specific policy language that is relevant to the alleged violations. Thus, the Purported Notice is invalid for noncompliance with Section 624.155(3)(b)(4), Florida Statutes. This deficiency applies to all allegations in the Purported Notice, including but not limited to claim delay, unsatisfactory settlement offer, and failure to properly investigate claim with due regard to insured’s interest, supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1) and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), Florida Statutes. On March 3, 2021, the Fourth District Court of Appeal issued a relevant opinion in Junior Julien v. United Property and Casualty Insurance Company, 311 So.3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). In Julien, the insured appealed the circuit court’s dismissal of his lawsuit against his insurer, finding that the insured’s Civil Remedy Notice (“CRN”) failed to satisfy the statutory requirement that an insured “state with specificity” the policy language and the statutory provisions at issue. In his CRN, the insured cited numerous statutory provisions and listed nearly every provision in the insurance policy. On appeal, the Fourth District affirmed the dismissal and agreed with the circuit court that the CRN failed to specify the statutory and policy provisions at issue. Like the CRN in Julien, the Purported Notice fails to “state with specificity” the policy language at issue. Deficiency #2 The Purported Notice does not supply necessary information that would allow Frontline to “cure” the alleged violations, as required by Florida law. In Talat Enter., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1283 (Fla. 2000), the Florida Supreme Court stated that alleged statutory violations may be “cured,” in the context of a first-party insurance claim, by payment of “the contractual amount due the insured” within the 60 days following the acceptance of a valid notice. While the Purported Notice demands payment of certain contractual proceeds, it also demands payment of extra contractual items such as appraisal costs, public adjuster fees, and attorney’s fees, all of which are not are not supported by Florida law in the context of a civil remedy notice. This improper demand makes it impossible for Frontline to cure the Purported Notice by paying the contractual amount owed. Thus, the Purported Notice is invalid. This deficiency applies to all allegations in the Purported Notice, including but not limited to claim delay, unsatisfactory settlement offer, and failure to properly investigate claim with due regard to insured’s interest, supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1) and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), Florida Statutes. Deficiency #3 Finally, and as stated under Deficiency # 2, the Purported Notice improperly demands that Frontline pay extra-contractual items such as the actual costs incurred for the appraisal process, the public adjuster’s fee, and attorney’s fees and costs. This demand independently invalidates the Purported Notice in its entirety. In Talat, the Florida Supreme Court adopted the following analysis by United States Magistrate Judge Glazebrook: The Court rejects as unsupported Talat's contention that the insurer must not only pay the claim within the sixty-day window, but must also pay all compensatory damages that flow from any delay in settling the claim. Section 624.155 does not impose on an insurer the obligation to pay whatever the insured demands. The sixty-day window is designed to be a cure period that will encourage payment of the underlying claim, and avoid unnecessary bad faith litigation. Surely an insurer need not immediately pay 100% of the damages claimed to flow from bad faith conduct in order to avoid the chance that the insured will succeed on a bad faith cause of action. If the insurer may avoid a bad faith action only by paying in advance every penny of the damages that it faces if it loses at trial, the insurer would have no reason to pay. Furthermore, few insureds would restrict their demands to compensatory damages. There is no reason why insureds would not demand also the advance payment of punitive damages and attorney's fees. Section 624.155(2)(d) would have no effect or purpose under such an interpretation. The law does not support such an expansive and illogical reading of Fla. Stat. Ann. § 624.155(2)(d). See Talat, 753 So. 2d 1278, at 1282 (emphasis added). As noted by Judge Glazebrook and the Florida Supreme Court, Section 624.155, Florida Statutes does not contemplate payment of extra-contractual items in Civil Remedy Notices. Thus, the Purported Notice is invalid. Notwithstanding the deficiencies in, and the invalidity of, the Purported Notice, Frontline denies any wrongdoing. It specifically denies that it violated the insurance policy or Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Purported Notice. Moreover, to the extent the Department or a court of law deems the Purported Notice valid, Frontline maintains that it cured the alleged violations by paying the appraisal award plus interest on prior payments during the cure period. Please be advised, by this letter, Frontline neither waives, nor is estopped, from asserting any and all rights it may have in law, or, under the terms of the policy. In fact, Frontline hereby again, expressly, and specifically, reserves all of its rights, without exception or limitation. If you have any questions or concerns with this response, or, regarding any other matter, please contact me in writing. Sincerely, /s/ Andrew L. Bickford Andrew Bickford BICKFORD & CHIDNESE, LLP 307 S. Willow Ave., Suite 100 Tampa, FL 33606
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