Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     786242
Filing Accepted:  10/9/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
BLAGOEV   First Name   PETAR & LOUISE
Street Address * 1012 SAN MATEO DR.
City, State Zip * PUNTA GORDA, FL 33950
Email Address * LABLAGOEV@COMCAST.NET
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   BLAGOEV   First Name   PETAR & LOUISE
Policy # * SJ30085974 Claim #* SL22206266
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* CIANI First Name * NICHOLAS Initial
Street Address* 1529 NE 17 TER
City, State Zip* FORT LAUDERDALE , FLORIDA 33304
Email Address * MANAGER@CIANI.LAW
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   SLIDE INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 17227
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* NAOMI RUITER, ELLERY HARRIS-BALL, JOHN HUFF, CINDY BRAUD, DELYNSI CHE, TIARA GIBBS, AMBER MCCRARY, JEFF GRAHAM, KIM SHEEHEY, TERRANCE SWANSON
Type of Insurance * Residential 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.
626.9541(1)(i)(2) A material misrepresentation made to an insured or any other person having an interest in the proceeds payable under such contract or policy, for the purpose and with the intent of effecting settlement of such claims, loss, or damage under such contract or policy on less favorable terms than those provided in, and contemplated by, such contract or policy.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f) Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of the basis in the insurance policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement.
626.9541(1)(i)(4) Failing to pay undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed under first-party property insurance policies within 60 days after an insurer receives notice of a residential property insurance claim, determines the amounts of partial or full benefits, and agrees to coverage, unless payment of the undisputed benefits is prevented by factors beyond the control of the insurer as defined in s. 627.70131(5).
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Specific policy language that is believed to be relevant to the violations includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the following: Also, please keep in mind that not all violations of Florida Bad Faith Statutes necessarily implicate policy provisions. See Subject Policy: SLIDE INSURANCE COMPANY Policy No.: SJ30085974 Coverage A - Dwelling $613,751 Coverage B - Other Structures $12,275 SECTION I – PERILS INSURED AGAINST A. Coverage A – Dwelling And Coverage B – Other Structures 1. We insure against risk of direct physical loss to property described in Coverages A and B Coverage A – Dwelling 1. We cover: a. The dwelling on the "residence premises" shown in the Declarations, including structures attached to the dwelling; and b. Materials and supplies located on or next to the "residence premises" used to construct, alter or repair the dwelling or other structures on the "residence premises B. Coverage B – Other Structures 1. We cover other structures on the "residence premises" set apart from the dwelling by clear space. This includes structures connected to the dwelling by only a fence, utility line, or similar connection H. Our Option If we give you written notice within 30 days after we receive your signed, sworn proof of loss, we may repair or replace any part of the damaged property with material or property of like kind and quality For an additional premium, we insure aluminum framed screened enclosures for direct physical loss due to hurricane. This endorsement does not increase the limit of liability for Coverage A or Coverage B. The most we will pay to replace an aluminum framed screened enclosure is the limit of liability indicated for screened enclosures in the policy declarations Covered property losses are settled at replacement cost without deduction for depreciation at the time of loss, but no more than the amount required to repair or replace and no more than the limit of liability indicated for screened enclosures in the policy declarations SIC HO HE 02 22 -Screened Enclosure - Hurricane $19,764
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

This notice is given to SLIDE INSURANCE COMPANY (hereafter “INSURER”) to perfect PETAR & LOUISE BLAGOEV (hereafter “Insured(s)”) right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by Fla. Stat. s. 624.155. This complaint is made on behalf of Insured(s). In consideration of the premium paid to it by the Insured(s), SLIDE INSURANCE COMPANY issued a Residential Property Insurance Policy bearing Policy No.: SJ30085974 (hereafter “Policy”). On or around September 28, 2022, while the Policy was in full force and effect, the Insured(s) suffered a direct physical loss at the insured property located at 1012 SAN MATEO DR., PUNTA GORDA, FLORIDA 33950 (hereafter “Property”) due to WIND. The claim was reported to SLIDE INSURANCE COMPANY on or around September 30, 2022. SLIDE INSURANCE COMPANY assigned Claim No. SL22206266 to the loss. The areas of the home that were damaged included personal property, the boat lift, exterior fixtures, gutters, soffit and fascia, exterior walls, pool enclosure, roofing system, several interior rooms, and the garage. These areas have been specifically documented with photographs and estimates and provided to SLIDE INSURANCE COMPANY prior to filing any Notice of Intent or litigation. To date, SLIDE INSURANCE COMPANY has failed to fully indemnify PETAR & LOUISE BLAGOEV and SLIDE INSURANCE COMPANY has violated several bad faith statutes, with impunity. Some of these bad faith practices amounts to a general business practice. Hurricane Ian devastated the area surrounding the Insureds Property on September 28, 2022. Two days later the Blagoevs filed their own claim with Slide. They did not enlist the help of a Public Adjuster or attorney and at the time assumed they could deal directly with Slide. For background, the Blagoevs have owned the Property since 1997 and fully replaced their roof after Hurricane Charlie in 2005. They were insured previously by St. Johns, which was subsequently bought out by Slide, who assumed the Policy. Once the Blagoevs filed the claim, Slide began implementing one of their general bad faith practices, which included reassigning the claim to a new adjuster every few weeks. This is a tactic oft used by insurers to delay the adjustment of the claim and by extension delay making payments on the claim. In this instance, Slide engaged ten separate individuals to adjust this claim before a Notice of Intent or litigation was filed. The names of those individuals are: Naomi Ruiter; Ellery Harris-Ball; John Huff; Cindy Braud; Delynsi Che; Tiara Gibbs; Amber McCrary; Jeff Graham; Kim Sheehey; Terrance Swanson. This list includes seven different Desk Adjusters, two field adjusters, and one alleged roofer. Nearly every time the Blagoevs called Slide to discuss their claim, Slide had assigned a new adjuster. The Blagoevs would have to explain everything all over again while the new adjuster got up to speed on the file. This was not only frustrating, but caused significant delay and confusion in the claims process. Eventually the Blagoevs were forced to hire help and engaged the services of a Public Adjuster, Oakmont Public Adjusting in May 2023. This bad faith practice of continuously reassigning the claim has been used many times by Slide and other insurers and is the quintessential example of failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims in violation of 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a). You’ll often hear insurers and agents complain about public adjusters, but you’ll never hear the stories where insurers drive their customers directly into a public adjuster’s arms by dealing with them in bad faith, which is exactly what happened to the Blagoevs. Let’s back up to around September 2022 when the claim was opened. Initially, a company called Strategic Roofing was sent to the Blagoevs property to perform an inspection. The company is known for participating in the Slide preferred vendor program, but Slide’s official position is that it has no knowledge of Strategic Roofing being at the Blagoev’s property. According to the Blagoevs, this company inspected their property and said a roof replacement was warranted. This is obviously something the Blagoevs couldn’t possibly make up, so the fact that Slide is denying all knowledge of this inspection could only lead to the conclusion that Strategic Roofing wasn’t supposed to tell the Blagoevs their roof needed to be replaced. Not only is this another failure of Slide to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims, but it is also a misrepresentation of facts with the intent to resolve the Blagoevs claim on less favorable terms. Thus, Slide violated 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), and 626.9541(1)(i)(2). We also need to discuss a couple specific aspects of the claimed damages, i.e., the pool cage and the dock/boat lift damages. As to the pool cage, Slide opened coverage for those damages to the tune of around $5,500. In deposition, Slide clarified that the $5,500 was intended to cover a full pool cage replacement, and yet that money doesn’t come anywhere close to the actual cost of a pool cage replacement. The Blagoevs submitted four independent valuations of the pool cage replacement from companies called Andrews Roofing, Scribbs, Screens Over Marco, and Fabri-Tech. These are companies that actually perform the work, not just an adjuster coming up with an unsubstantiated $5,500 to do the work. Those four estimates are anywhere from $17,000 to $45,000. This goes well beyond a mere difference of opinion as Slide has underpaid these covered damages by more than three times. To be sure, the Blagoevs’ Policy has a separate coverage for the pool cage of $19,764 to be paid out under replacement cost value. That Polic language is cited above in this CRN. All of this information was provided to Slide before any Notice of Intent or Litigation was initiated, but Slide chose not to attempt to settle this portion of the claim in good faith in violation of 624.155(1)(b)(1). Further, this amounts to a misrepresentation from Slide by standing on its unsubstantiated estimate of $5,500. This was a violation of 626.9541.(1)(i)(2). Considering there is no genuine dispute of material fact that Slide underpaid the pool cage, Slide is in violation of 626.9541(1)(i)(4) for failing to pay the adequate amount within 90 days of the Blagoevs opening the claim. As to the dock/boat lift damages, this was a portion of the Blagoevs claim that was simply never adjusted, despite the Blagoevs providing Slide with all the necessary information prior to any Notice of Intent or litigation being initiated. The Blagoevs provided invoices from companies called Parr Marine and Livingston Electric for the wind damage to their dock/boat lift along with photographs of the damages taken by the Public Adjuster, which specific annotations pointing out the damage. Slide confirmed under oath that it received all of this information prior to receiving a Notice of Intent, that the Blagoevs Policy covers for wind damage to the dock/boat lift, and that Slide simply never adjusted these damages. This is yet another failure to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims in violation of 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a). This also amounts to a functional denial of these damages without providing an explanation in violation of 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f) and a denial without engaging in a reasonable investigation based on available information in violation of 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d). Finally, Slide is also in violation of 626.9541(1)(i)(4) for failing to pay these invoices within 90 days of the Blagoevs either opening the claim or providing this information for Slide’s review, whichever is greater. In order to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, the Insured(s) invite(s) SLIDE INSURANCE COMPANY to: Create and implement adequate guidelines for the proper investigation and evaluation of claims, including claims handling, training and supervision of employees and agents, which will avoid future statutory violations as set forth above; and Immediately tender all insurance benefits due and owing to the Insured(s) under the Policy to return the property to pre-loss condition, including all interest due and owing under applicable Florida Statutes and all reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to Fla. Stat. §626.428, which is to be determined by a court of law at a later date. The Insured(s) has/have previously submitted to SLIDE INSURANCE COMPANY an estimate totaling $323,077.42 actual cash value damages. The Insured(s) invite(s) SLIDE INSURANCE COMPANY to use these figures in determining a proper indemnity amount, even though it is not necessary for the Insured(s) to list a specific cure amount herein. See Lugassy v. United Property & Cas. Ins. Co., 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 8143 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022). Any indemnity amounts would be in addition to, not including, attorney’s fees.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
mthornton@slideinsurance.com 11-19-2024 Via E-mail & Posting on DFS Website Nicholas Ciani, Esq. Ciani Law, PLLC 1529 NE 17th Terr, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33304 manager@ciani.law Insured: Petar Blagoev and Louise Blagoev Claim No: SL22206266 Policy No.: SJ30085974 Date of loss: 09/28/2022 CRN Filing No.: 786242 Dear Mr. Ciani: Please allow this correspondence to serve as Slide Insurance Company’s (“Slide”)’s response to the Civil Remedy Notice (“CRN”) that was filed on behalf of Petar Blagoev and Louise Blagoev (“Insureds”). Herein, we include a brief factual history of the underlying claim and actions by Slide which reveals it has acted properly in responding to the underlying claim and in compliance with its contractual and legal obligations. Slide denies each and every allegation brought forth in the CRN and denies any wrongdoing in the handling of the underlying claim. Additionally, Slide denies violating any Florida Statute or Administrative Code as set forth more specifically herein. Moreover, Slide denies violating any provisions or duties set forth in the applicable policy of insurance. Slide further states that the facts and circumstances that are set forth in the CRN, while incomplete and misleading, do not give rise to any violation of any statute or policy provision referenced in the Notice. Furthermore, Slide challenges the validity of the CRN for not identifying the specific policy language they claim Slide failed to follow. See, e.g., Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So.3d 875, 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (affirming dismissal for civil remedy notice’s failure to either strictly, or substantially, comply with statutory specificity requirement); Demase v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company, 351 So.3d 136, 138-39 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022) (holding that the trial court properly determined that a CRN that failed to state with specificity the relevant policy language was legally insufficient). Finally, the Notice is improper as the Insureds failed to establish that Slide breached the policy of insurance, as required by Fla. Stat. § 624.1551. CLAIM FACTS The underlying claim was reported on September 30, 2022, as a claim for damages stemming from Hurricane Ian, which was alleged to have occurred on September 28, 2022. On October 8, 2022, Slide sent Independent Adjuster John Huff to inspect the insured property. Thereafter, on September 14, 2023, Slide sent Independent Adjuster Terrance Swanson to perform a re-inspection of the subject property. Based on Slide’s complete investigation and evaluation of the claim, Slide issued an two undisputed payments totaling approximately $45,738.56. Thus, Slide maintains that it has acted in accordance with the terms of the subject insurance policy, and the law, and has acted in good faith towards the Insureds. Slide denies that it violated any statutes or committed the acts asserted in the CRN. Slide neither waives nor is estopped from asserting any and all rights that it may have in law or under the terms of the policy. Slide expressly reserves all such rights without exception or limitation. REASONS FOR THE NOTICE The CRN alleges multiple reasons for the filing of the Notice. However, no specific facts or circumstances are provided to support these allegations. Notwithstanding, Slide denies each and every allegation individually as follows: 1. Claim Delay: Slide denies any delay in the claims handling process of the underlying loss as is evident from the facts outlined above. Slide promptly acknowledged the claim and timely initiated its investigation of the loss including an inspection of the subject property. Slide acted in accordance with its duties and obligations pursuant to the policy of insurance and responded appropriately to information and documentation that was provided. Thus, Slide asserts that this allegation is without basis and therefore denied. 2. Unfair Trade Practice: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is wholly denied. The Insured has submitted no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. The handling and administration of this claim occurred with the expediency and timeliness allowed by the statutory requirements imposed upon Slide. At no time did Slide, its agents, or its employees delay the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. The facts show that Slide acted promptly with respect to the investigation of the underlying claim and made communications as necessary to adjust the claim in a prompt and appropriate manner. Information necessary and relevant to the proceeding of the claim was communicated to the Insured or their representatives in an appropriate and timely manner. 3. Not treating the policyholder with good faith claims conduct: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is wholly denied. Slide’s adjusters have at all times acted fairly and honestly and in good faith towards the Insured in the adjustment of the underlying claim, treating all insureds equally. Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the requirements of Florida law and the policy of insurance. The Insureds’ assertions to the contrary are unsupported by the facts. Thus, this allegation is without basis and therefore denied. 4. Looking for ways to deny full recovery to the Claimant: Slide denies that it denied full recovery to the Claimant as is evident from the facts outlined above. Slide promptly acknowledged the claim and timely initiated its investigation of the loss including an inspection of the subject property. Slide acted in accordance with its duties and obligations pursuant to the policy of insurance and Florida law, and responded appropriately to information and documentation that was provided. Thus, Slide asserts that this allegation is without basis and therefore denied. 5. Failing to properly investigate the Insured’s loss: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is wholly denied. Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the requirements of Florida law and the policy of insurance. The Insureds’ assertions to the contrary are unsupported by the facts. Thus, this allegation is without basis and therefore denied. 6. Not training, supervising, or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is wholly denied. The aforementioned facts demonstrate that Slide employed proper and customary claims practices in the investigation and adjustment of this claim including, but not limited to, inspections of the insured’s property and communications with the insureds and their representatives. Accordingly, Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Additionally, the insured has submitted no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. The handling and administration of this claim occurred with the expediency and timeliness allowed by the statutory requirements imposed upon Slide. At no time did Slide, its agents, or its employees delay the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. The facts show that Slide acted promptly with respect to the investigation of the underlying claim and made communications as necessary to adjust the claim in a prompt and appropriate manner. Information necessary and relevant to the proceeding of the claim were communicated to the insured or his representatives in an appropriate manner. Thus, this allegation is without basis and therefore denied. 7. Not adjusting claims and evaluating loss properly: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is wholly denied. Slide’s adjusters have at all times acted fairly and honestly and in good faith towards the Insured in the adjustment of the underlying claim, treating all insureds equally. Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the requirements of Florida law and the policy of insurance. The Insureds’ assertions to the contrary are unsupported by the facts. Thus, this allegation is without basis and therefore denied. 8. Failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is wholly denied. The aforementioned facts demonstrate that Slide employed proper and customary claims practices in the investigation and adjustment of this claim including, but not limited to, inspection of the insureds’ property and communications with the insureds and their representatives. Accordingly, Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Additionally, the Insureds have submitted no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. The handling and administration of this claim occurred with the expediency and timeliness allowed by the statutory requirements imposed upon Slide. At no time did Slide, its agents, or its employees delay the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. The facts show that Slide acted promptly with respect to the investigation of the underlying claim and made communications as necessary to adjust the claim in a prompt and appropriate manner. Information necessary and relevant to the proceeding of the claim, were communicated to the insured or his representatives in an appropriate manner. Thus, this allegation is without basis and therefore denied. ALLEGED STATUTORY VIOLATIONS The CRN alleges seven (7) statutory violations. However, no specific facts or circumstances are provided to support these allegations. Notwithstanding, Slide denies each and every allegation of statutory violation individually as follows: 1. 624.155(1)(b)(1): Denied. The underlying claim was investigated and adjusted in as thorough and expedient a manner as possible. Following the investigation and evaluation of the underlying claim, payment was tendered to the Insureds. Moreover, the Insureds have submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 2. 626.9541(1)(i)(2): Denied. Slide has not made any material misrepresentations to the Insured or any other person having an interest in the proceeds payable under the subject policy for insurance. The underlying claim has been investigated and adjusted in as thorough and expedient a manner as possible. Slide routinely communicated relevant information to the Insureds and/or their representatives. Thus, any such allegation is without merit and unsupported by the facts of the underlying claim. Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Finally, the Insureds have submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 3. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Denied. This allegation is without basis. Slide has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of claims at all times during the investigation of the subject matter. The aforementioned facts demonstrate that Slide employed proper and customary claims practices in the investigation and adjustment of this claim including, but not limited to, a prompt inspection of the insured property and timely communications with the Insureds and their representatives. Accordingly, Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Finally, the Insureds have submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 4. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b): Denied. Slide denies that it misrepresented pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. Following a complete investigation and evaluation of the underlying claim, Slide communicated its coverage determination(s) citing to the relevant and applicable policy terms, conditions, limitations, and exclusions. Moreover, there is no support for this allegation. 5. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d): Denied. The underlying claim was investigated and adjusted in as thorough and expedient a manner as possible. Following the findings from its investigation, Slide provided a written explanation of the coverage decision based on the opinions of a hired expert and the limited information provided by the Insureds to substantiate their claims, and including the relevant information and policy provisions. The Insureds have submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 6. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f): Denied. Slide provided a written explanation of the coverage decision based on the opinions of a hired expert and the limited information provided by the Insureds to substantiate their claims, and including the relevant information and policy provisions. There is no support for this allegation. 7. 626.9541(1)(i)(4): Denied. The underlying claim was investigated and adjusted in as thorough and expedient a manner as possible. Upon receipt an estimate from the Insureds’ Public Adjuster, the claim was reopened for further investigation. Based on the information available, including two inspections, the Insureds were advised of the coverage decision pursuant to the policy’s terms, conditions, limitations, and exclusions. The Insureds have submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE INSURANCE POLICY The CRN fails to allege specific violations of the insurance policy and provides no specific facts or circumstances of wrongdoing. The boilerplate CRN merely sets forth blanket allegations of wrongdoing, without further information. As such, the CRN is defective, as it failed to specifically identify the policy language that is the subject of the alleged violation, and further failed to include sufficient facts to put Slide on notice of the alleged violations. Notwithstanding, Slide denies any and all allegations of policy violations. All actions by Slide were done in compliance with the applicable Policy. As indicated above, Slide thoroughly investigated the reported loss, including inspection of the Insureds’ property. Thus, it is clear that Slide has acted in compliance with the Policy. Slide asserts that it has at all times complied with the terms of the Policy and has complied with all applicable provisions of the Policy and Florida Statutes in the handling of this matter. STATEMENTS AS TO CURING THE DEFECTS OUTLINED IN THE NOTICE The CRN asserts that Slide must tender all insurance benefits due and owing. Nevertheless, the method for curing violations alleged in a Civil Remedy Notice is not determined by the Insureds. Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co., 753 So. 2d So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). Accordingly, Florida Statutes Section 624.155 does not impose on an insurer the obligation to pay whatever the Insured demands. Section 624.155(2)(d) would have no effect or purpose under such an interpretation. Thus, Slide reasserts that it has acted in good faith towards its Insureds at all times. Slide references to all the facts herein, which unequivocally demonstrate Slide’s expedient and timely administration of the Insureds’ claim. Slide further asserts its full and strict compliance with the Policy and reiterates that it has acted properly in responding to the underlying claim in compliance with its contractual and legal obligations. Slide denies any wrongdoing in the handling of the underlying claim. Additionally, Slide denies violating any Florida Statute, Administrative Code, or code of ethics. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the documented facts of this claim establish that Slide acted diligently in its claims response and adequately performed its obligations under the policy of insurance and Florida law. Thus, the facts contradict all allegations that Slide has in any manner acted improperly or contrary to its contractual obligations to the Insureds in this claim. Herein, Slide has attempted to fully and adequately respond to the allegations the Insureds allege in the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation filed with the Department. Should there be any questions or further inquiry with respect to this matter, please contact the undersigned at (727) 617-2883 or at lbeck@slideinsurance.com. Sincerely, /s/ Lauren N. Beck Lauren N. Beck, 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