Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     786286
Filing Accepted:  10/9/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
BROWN   First Name   STEVEN
Street Address * 23 MIDGET PL
City, State Zip * WINTER GARDEN, FL 34787
Email Address * STEVENSBROWN1@YAHOO.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   BROWN   First Name   STEVEN
Policy # * P014121035 Claim #* 255908
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* LEON First Name * JOSE Initial
Street Address* 2828 CORAL WAY, STE. 410-B
City, State Zip* MIAMI , FLORIDA 33145
Email Address * JLEON@JLEONLAW.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10117
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* UNKNOWN
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
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)(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)(g) Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h) Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

The damage to the Insured's property is extensive and covered by different subsections of Section I, Property Coverages and Perils Insured Against, and no exclusions apply. Specifically, the sections that provide coverage for the Insured's claim are the following: - Section I, Property Coverages, Coverage A-Dwelling. - Section I, Property Coverages, Coverage B-Other Structures. - Section I, Property Coverages, Coverage C-Personal Property. - Section I, Property Coverages, Coverage D-Loss of Use. - Section I, Property Coverages, Additional Coverages. - Section I, Perils Insured Against, Coverage A-Dwelling. - Section I, Perils Insured Against, Coverage B-Other Structures. - Section I, Perils Insured Against, Coverage C-Personal Property. - Section I, Exclusions: None Apply.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Steven Brown (the "Complainant") submits this notice to Security First Insurance Company to perfect his right to pursue a civil remedy action against Security First Insurance, pursuant to section 624.155, Fla. Stat. Despite multiple requests, Security First Insurance has refused to acknowledge the existence and validity of the Complainant’s Public Adjuster, Preferred Claim Solutions, Inc., even though the contract between the Complainant and Preferred Claim Solutions, Inc. fully complies with Florida Statutes. Security First Insurance’s failure to recognize this contract is obstructing the Complainant’s right to proper representation under Florida law and preventing Preferred Claim Solutions, Inc. from acting as the Public Adjuster for this claim, including the submission of documents and handling of the property damage claim. This refusal to acknowledge the contract is a direct violation of the Complainant’s right to obtain proper representation, constituting bad faith on the part of Security First Insurance. It impedes the claim process and delays the fair resolution of the property damage caused by the loss. On or about May 11, 2024, the Complainant’s property located at 23 Midget Pl, Winter Garden, FL 34787, sustained a sudden and accidental covered loss due to a wind event. The damage impacted multiple areas of the property, including but not limited to the shingle roof, shed roof, carport, entry/foyer, family room, dining room, kitchen, hallway, and sunroom. The Complainant promptly notified Security First Insurance of the damage under Claim 255908, pursuant to his policy P014121035. Although the Complainant has complied with all policy requirements and provided timely notification of the loss, Security First Insurance has failed to allow Preferred Claim Solutions, Inc. to participate in the claim process. This refusal is preventing the submission of essential documents and the handling of the claim in accordance with the terms of the policy and the Public Adjuster contract. Preferred Claim Solutions, Inc. has prepared a comprehensive estimate for the necessary repairs, totaling $66,167.07. However, Security First Insurance has neither acknowledged the Public Adjuster's authority nor allowed them to act on behalf of the Complainant. This failure to recognize the Complainant’s representative violates the insured’s rights and demonstrates bad faith. Additionally, Security First Insurance has not made any payment toward this amount, despite clear evidence of the loss and the resulting damages. The actions of Security First Insurance violate the rights afforded to policyholders under Florida law. By preventing the Complainant from engaging proper representation and delaying payment of the estimated damages, Security First Insurance is acting in bad faith and failing to fulfill its contractual obligations. Upon information and belief, Security First Insurance employs this strategy as a business practice to avoid or delay paying valid claims. This conduct demonstrates a pattern of bad faith and a breach of their duty to act fairly and in good faith toward their insureds. Security First Insurance can cure its bad faith actions at this time by: 1. Acknowledging the contract between the Complainant and Preferred Claim Solutions, Inc., and allowing Preferred Claim Solutions, Inc. to submit all necessary documentation and handle the claim on behalf of the Complainant. 2. Issuing payment in the amount of $66,167.07 for the damages to the property, as per the estimate prepared by the Public Adjuster. Failure to take these corrective actions will result in further pursuit of legal remedies, including but not limited to the initiation of a civil remedy action under section 624.155, Fla. Stat.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
Nick.heilman@securityfirstflorida.com 12-06-2024 12/6/2024 Via Electronic Filing: Florida Department of Financial Services Bureau of Consumer Assistance c/o: Civil Remedy Section Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0322 Via Email: Jose Leon 2828 coral Way, Ste 410-B Miami, Florida 33145 JLeon@Jleonlaw.com Re: CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE OF INSURER VIOLATION Filing No.: _786286______ Insured: Steven Brown Insurer: Security First Insurance Company Claim No.: 255908 Policy No.: P014121035 Date of Loss: 5/11/2024 Dear Sir or Madam: This correspondence is in response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (hereinafter referred to as the “CRN”) was filed by Jose Leon on behalf of his client, Steven Brown (hereinafter referred to as “Insured”). Please be advised that the undersigned represents the interests of Security First Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as “Security First”) with respect to the above-referenced matter. The Florida Department of Financial Services (hereinafter referred to as “Department”) assigned this CRN an acceptance date of 10/9/2024 and DFS File No.: 786286. This matter concerns a property damage claim made by the Insured pursuant to a homeowners’ insurance policy provided by Security First Policy No. P01412035 and assigned Claim No. 255908. As the basis for filing the CRN against Security First, Steven Brown asserts in the “Reasons for Notice” section violations such as claim delay and unfair trade practice, along with the following statutory violations: _624.155(1)(b)(1), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h). Security First welcomes this opportunity to respond to the CRN and denies each allegation contained therein. The allegations made in the CRN are premature, as the insured has failed to perfect the claim for bad faith and the CRN does not meet the specificity requirement of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. This CRN does not sufficiently support the allegations stated above. As is standard procedure, upon the first notice of the claim, the subject property was dutifully inspected by an SFIC representative which was documented through photographs. I. Perfecting a Claim for Bad Faith SFIC specifically denies all allegations set forth in the Notice. SFIC contends that the Notice should be rejected and returned by the Department of Financial Services as it is premature. Pursuant to statute, there is no potential violation until a breach of contract is established. § 624.1551, Florida Statutes. Accordingly, any Notice filed prior to a finding that SFIC has breached the terms of the policy, is not ripe and is premature and thus fails to perfect Steven Brown rights to pursue civil remedies under Florida Statutes. II. Specificity Requirement The Insured’s CRN violates multiple requirements set forth in the Florida courts’ jurisprudence for Civil Remedy Notices. In addition, it fails to meet even the most basic requirements of the Statute. Pursuant to the terms of the statute, (3)(a) As a condition precedent to bringing an action under this section, the department and the authorized insurer must have been given 60 days’ written notice of the violations. Notice to the authorized insurer must be provided by the department to the e-mail address designated by the insurer under s. 624.422. a. The notice shall be on a form provided by the department and shall state with specificity the following information, and such other information as the department may require (emphasis added): b. (3)(a) As a condition precedent to bringing an action under this section, the department and the authorized insurer must have been given 60 days’ written notice of the violations. Notice to the authorized insurer must be provided by the department to the e-mail address designated by the insurer under s. 624.422. i. The statutory provision, including the specific language of the statute, which the authorized insurer allegedly violated. ii. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation. iii. The name of any individual involved in the violation. iv. 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. v. A statement that the notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section. In interpreting this statute, courts have emphasized the importance of filing specific civil remedy notices. The civil remedy notice is “crucial to the procedural integrity of an action” under the Statute. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Clohessy, 32 F.Supp.2d 1328, 1333 (M.D. Fla. 1998). “It is, without a doubt, a condition that must be satisfied in order for one to perfect the right to sue under the statute.” Id. “In creating this statutory remedy for bad- faith actions, the Legislature provided this sixty-day window as a last opportunity for insurers to comply with their claim-handling obligations when a good-faith decision by the insurer would indicate that contractual benefits are owed.” Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 2000). Thus, the Notice cannot be “vague and ‘shotgun’ in nature,” rather than “the type of specific notice required by the statute that would allow [the insurer] an opportunity to cure.” Heritage Corp. of South Florida v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 580 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1299 (S.D. Fla. 2008). Because it is in derogation of the common law, Section 624.155(1)(b), Florida Statutes must be strictly construed. Talat, 753 So. 2d at 1283 (citing Baxter v. Royal Indem. Co., 285 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). To perfect the right to sue under the statute, the insured must specifically notify the insured of any and all alleged violations claimed. Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 952 F.Supp. 773, 776 (M.D. Fla. 1996) (“Talat I”) See Fox v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., No. 8:16-CV-3254-T-23MAP, 2017 WL 1541294, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2017) (sufficiency means specificity). In Junior Julien v. United Property and Casualty Insurance Company, 311 So.3d 875, 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021), the Honorable Court stated: The Middle District of Florida was confronted with a civil remedy notice that was similarly broad in scope and concluded that listing nearly all policy provisions on the notice did not satisfy the statute. Fox v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., No. 8:16-CV-3254-T-23MAP, 2017 WL 1541294, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2017). The court explained that “[i]f the statute contained no specificity requirement, [then] the [insureds’] casual ‘reference’ to the entire insurance policy undoubtedly would suffice.” Id. But, the court continued, “the Legislature included ‘specific’ or a variant not once but twice in the statute.” Id. As a result, the insureds’ listing of whole sections of the insurance policy “appear[ed] to lack specificity.” Id. In Valenti, the District Court for the Middle District of Florida considered the practical consequences of an insured’s non-specific civil remedy notice. Valenti v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America, 2006 WL 1627276 (M.D. Fla. 2006). The plaintiff’s civil remedy notice included allegations that the defendant conducted an inadequate investigation. The plaintiff, however, failed to identify with the requisite specificity the defendant’s actions that were inadequate. The Middle District held that the plaintiff’s civil remedy notice was insufficient, and stated the following: [T]he civil remedy notice must be specific enough to provide insurers notice of the wrongdoing so the insurer can cure the same within sixty days. … Plaintiffs’ counsel, during the hearing in this matter, argued a civil remedy notice that states “you denied my claim” should be sufficient to place the insurer on notice of what was needed to be cured. Plaintiffs’ counsel further argued that it was up to the insurer, as the insurance expert, to decipher what actions needed to be cured. This argument, in this Court's estimation, is illogical and is counter to the purpose of the civil remedy notice. If a simple “you denied my claim” was sufficient to put insurers on notice, the sixty-day cure period would be little more than a guessing game with the insurer attempting to correctly guess what errors the insured claimed it made in the claims handling process, or risk defending a bad faith action. This surely is not what the legislature had in mind when it created the civil remedy notice. Accordingly, this Court finds that Plaintiffs allegation that Defendant failed to conduct an adequate investigation is insufficient to provide Defendant an opportunity to cure. Id. at *2. The guidance for an insured could not be more clear. “The purpose of the civil remedy notice is to give the insurer one last chance to settle a claim with its insured and avoid unnecessary bad faith litigation.” Lane v. Westfield Insurance Co., 862 So. 2d 774, 779 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Its purpose is not “to give the insured a right of action to proceed against the insurer even after the insured’s claim has been paid or resolved.” Id. Ultimately, conclusory allegations without facts fail to perfect a statutory bad faith claim. Merely alleging the bare minimum allegations is insufficient pursuant to Florida courts’ interpretations of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. III. Conclusion At all times, Security First has acted in good faith in its handling of the claim and it has acted fairly, honestly, and with due regard for the Insured’s interest and in determining obligations to Insured. Specifically, Security First has complied with its obligations under the applicable Florida Statutes and the applicable Security First Insurance policy. Security First specifically denies any claim for bad faith and argues that the insured’s claim for bad faith is premature. Security First continues to reserve all its rights under the policy, at law and in equity. Regardless, Insured’s conclusory allegations fail to place Security First on notice of any purported violations. Furthermore, the Civil Remedy Notice fails to identify how to cure the allegations set forth. The allegations are without basis. It is clear Security First properly handled and adequately investigated the claim. We hope that this response has answered any concerns regarding this matter. If the Department has any question concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, _______________________ Harry Nicholas Heilman E106744 Security First Insurance Company P.O. Box 105649 Atlanta, GA 30348-5649 Nick.heilman@SecurityFirstFlorida.com Telephone Number: 386-868-1788
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