Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     786409
Filing Accepted:  10/11/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
RESILIENT BLACK LOVE, LLC   First Name  
Street Address * 1406 SHALLOW BROOK, UNITS A-D
City, State Zip * TALLAHASSEE, FL 32301
Email Address * SAKEENA.KENTON@GMAIL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   RESILIENT BLACK LOVE, LLC   First Name  
Policy # * FL07321849 Claim #* 63181
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* CHAVIN First Name * VALORIE Initial S
Street Address* 12955 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, SUITE 201
City, State Zip* NORTH MIAMI , FL 33181
Email Address * VCHAVIN@CMSLAWGROUP.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   SAFEPOINT INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 15341
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* JOHN DONADIO; JOHN DOBBELAIRE; JENNIFER COTUGNO
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
Claim Delay
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Unfair Trade Practice
Other : Violation of Florida Administrative Code 69B-220.201
* 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)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information.
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 insured property located at 1406 Shallow Brook, Units A-D, Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (the “Property”) is an investment property owned by Resilient Black Love, LLC (the “Insured”) and insured by a policy written by Safepoint Insurance Company (the “Insurance Company” or the “Carrier”) bearing policy number FL07321849. The Property suffered a devastating loss on May 10, 2024, caused by a windstorm and tornados, which ripped a massive oak tree from the ground and crashed it upon the roof of the Property resulting in two major impact points in the roof. The Policy insuring the Property provides coverage for the damages sustained. The Insured submitted a claim to the Insurance Company to address the loss, but sadly, the Insurance Company elevated its own interests over those of its Insured when the Carrier refused to exercise due care and deprived the Insured of a fair adjustment of the claim, failed to engage competent and qualified adjusters and experts to fairly adjust the claim and assess the damage, consistently ignored communications from the Insured and its representatives, unreasonably delayed the adjustment, misrepresented coverages available under the Policy, refused to acknowledge obviously covered damages and the true cost of repairs and issued an egregiously low payment that would not come close to providing sufficient monies to address the overwhelming storm damage to the Property. To date, the Insured is still without the compensation it needs and to which it is entitled. The Insured continues to suffer damages in the form of lost rental profits from the Property and has been forced to come out-of-pocket to begin the necessary repairs to restore the Property to a livable condition. The Insurance Company has failed and refused to fully, timely and properly compensate its Insured for the damages suffered because of this covered loss. Upon information and belief, the following policy language is at issue: COVERAGES . . . A. Coverage A – Dwelling 1. We cover: a. The dwelling on the Described Location shown in the Declarations, used principally for dwelling purposes, including structures attached to the dwelling; . . . C. Coverage C – Personal Property 1. Covered Property We cover personal property, usual to the occupancy as a dwelling and owned or used by you or members of your family residing with you while it is on the Described Location. After a loss and at your request, we will cover personal property owned by a guest or servant while the property is on the Described Location. . . . D. Coverage D – Fair Rental Value 1. If a loss to covered property described in Coverage A, B or C by a Peril Insured Against under this Policy makes that part of the Described Location rented to others or held for rental by you unfit for its normal use, we cover the fair rental value of that part of the Described Location rented to others or held for rental by you minus any expenses that do not continue while that part of the Described Location rented or held for rental is not fit to live in. Payment will be for the shortest time required to repair or replace that part of the Described Location rented or held for rental. In either event, the payment(s) will be limited to 24 consecutive months from the date of the covered loss. . . . F. Reasonable Emergency Measures 1. We will pay up to $3,000 for the reasonable costs incurred by you for necessary measures taken solely to protect covered property under Coverage A, Coverage B and Coverage C from further damage, when the damage or loss is caused by accidental discharge or overflow of water or steam from within a plumbing, heating, air conditioning or automatic fire protective sprinkler system or household appliance, subject to the limitations, exclusions and conditions, as described and covered in paragraphs A.2.c.(7) and c.(10) under PERILS INSURED AGAINST A. Coverage A – Dwelling And Coverage B – Other Structures and as described and covered in B. Coverage C – Personal Property Peril 12. The $3,000 limit in F.1. above is the total limit for all necessary measures taken solely to protect covered property, in the same loss, under any one or any combination of: a. Coverage A; b. Coverage B; or c. Coverage C. 2. For covered loss caused by PERILS INSURED AGAINST, other than the perils as described and covered in paragraphs A.2.c.(7) and (10) under PERILS INSURED AGAINST A. Coverage A – Dwelling And Coverage B – Other Structures and as described and covered in B. Coverage C – Personal Property Peril 12., the $3,000 limit in F.1. above does not apply and instead the following applies: a. In the event that covered property is damaged by an applicable Peril Insured Against, we will pay the reasonable costs incurred by you for necessary measures taken solely to protect covered property from further damage. b. If the measures taken involve repair to other damaged property, we will pay for those necessary measures only if that property is covered under this Policy and the damage to that property is caused by an applicable Peril Insured Against. 3. The coverage under F.1. and F.2. above does not: a. Increase the $10,000 limit on coverage under paragraphs A.3. and A.6. in PERILS INSURED AGAINST A. Coverage A – Dwelling And Coverage B – Other Structures. Any payment for Reasonable Emergency Measures F.1. will be deducted from the $10,000 limit on coverage under paragraphs A.3. and A.6. in PERILS INSURED AGAINST A. Coverage A – Dwelling And Coverage B – Other Structures; b. Increase any limit of liability that applies to the damaged covered property; c. Relieve you or an “assignee” of the Policy benefits, of the duties in case of a loss to covered property, as set forth in CONDITIONS D. Duties After Loss; d. Pay for property not covered in this Policy; or e. Pay for loss excluded or not covered in this Policy. 4. The exhaustion of the $3,000 Reasonable Emergency Measures limit in F.1. above does not prevent you from participating in the services provided under form CIT 05 85, if additional emergency water removal services are necessary. However, we will not pay under Reasonable Emergency Measures F.1. for any services, or part or portion of any services, provided and performed under form CIT 05 85. Subject to F.3. above, if you are eligible for and request to participate in the services provided under form CIT 05 85 and we do not offer the services to you, the $3,000 limit in paragraph F.1. does not apply. 5. We will not pay under Reasonable Emergency Measures F. for any repairs, replacement or rebuilding, or any part or portion of any repairs, replacement, or rebuilding, made or provided under form CIT 05 86. However, the $3,000 limit in F.1. above applies whether or not: a. You receive services under form CIT 05 86; or b. The $10,000 limit on coverage applies as described in paragraphs A.3. and A.6. under PERILS INSURED AGAINST A. Coverage A – Dwelling And Coverage B – Other Structures. . . . G. Other Coverages 1. Debris Removal We will pay the reasonable expense you incur for the removal of: a. Debris of covered property if a Peril Insured Against that applies to the damaged property causes the loss; or b. Ash, dust or particles from a volcanic eruption that has caused direct loss to a building or property contained in a building. Debris Removal expense is included in the limit of liability that applies to the damaged property. Debris Removal expense under G.1. above does not increase the $10,000 limit on coverage under paragraphs A.3. and A.6. in PERILS INSURED AGAINST A. Coverage A – Dwelling And Coverage B – Other Structures. Any payment for Debris Removal expense G.1. will be deducted from the $10,000 limit on coverage under paragraphs A.3. and A.6. in PERILS INSURED AGAINST A. Coverage A – Dwelling And Coverage B – Other Structures. . . . 9. "Fungi", Wet Or Dry Rot, Yeast Or Bacteria a. We will pay up to $10,000 for: (1) The total of all loss payable under the Coverages section of your Policy caused by "fungi", wet or dry rot, yeast or bacteria; (2) The cost to remove "fungi", wet or dry rot, yeast or bacteria from property covered under the Coverages section of your Policy; (3) The cost to tear out and replace any part of the building or other covered property as needed to gain access to the "fungi", wet or dry rot, yeast or bacteria; and (4) The cost of testing of air or property to confirm the absence, presence or level of "fungi", wet or dry rot, yeast or bacteria whether performed prior to, during or after removal, repair, restoration or replacement. The cost of such testing will be provided only to the extent that there is a reason to believe that there is the presence of "fungi", wet or dry rot, yeast or bacteria. b. The coverage described in a. only applies: (1) When such loss or costs are a result of a Peril Insured Against that occurs during the policy period; and (2) Only if all reasonable means were used to save and preserve the property from further damage at and after the time the Peril Insured Against occurred. . . . PERILS INSURED AGAINST A. Coverage A – Dwelling And Coverage B – Other Structures 1. We insure against direct loss to the covered property described in Coverages A and B only if that loss is a physical loss to property. . . . CONDITIONS . . . 1. Duties Of An Insured In case of a loss to covered property, we have no duty to provide coverage under this Policy to you or any other insured seeking coverage, if there is failure to comply with any of the following duties. These duties must be performed either by you, any other insured seeking coverage, or by a representative of either. a. Give prompt notice to us or the insurance agent shown in the Declarations. . . . b. Protect the covered property from further damage. The following must be performed: (1) Take reasonable emergency measures that are necessary to protect the covered property from further damage, as provided under Coverages F. Reasonable Emergency Measures. To the degree reasonably possible, damaged property and any other property that is related to the loss, whether the property is covered or not, must be retained for us or any person authorized to act on our behalf, to inspect; and (2) Keep an accurate record of expenses; . . .
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

The insured Property suffered catastrophic damage on May 10, 2024, when a dangerous windstorm produced tornadoes that sent a massive oak tree crashing onto the roof of the Property, crushing the roof and allowing wind and rain to rip through the interior. Following the terrifying storm, the Insured was advised of the loss by its property management company. The Insured immediately set to work relocating the tenants who resided in the two upstairs apartment units (one of whom relocated to a vacant unit downstairs, and the other requested to terminate the lease altogether). It then sought a tree removal company to address the giant tree that fell onto the roof. The Insured found it difficult to find a removal company capable of completing the job due to the size of the tree, and the experience, manpower, and equipment necessary to safely remove it. Finally, the Insured contracted with Life’s Tree Doctor (“Tree Doctor”). Tree Doctor worked tirelessly to complete the removal, utilizing a crane to carefully remove the tree without causing additional damage to the Property. Tree Doctor was also cognizant of completing the job quickly and efficiently before additional storms caused exacerbated damage. After successfully removing the tree from the Property, Tree Doctor prepared a detailed invoice outlining the substantial work completed including costs for crane-assisted removal of the oak tree and branches, crew of ground laborers and a skilled chainsaw arborist, use of a Kubota skid steer, tarping of the roof, and debris clean up. In total, the massive undertaking cost $27,605.00 to complete – a cost that the Insured had no choice to incur, especially when no other company would undertake the massive task. The Insured submitted a claim to the Insurance Company and promptly provided a copy of the Tree Doctor invoice so the Carrier could compensate the company for the work performed. However, instead of properly adjusting the Insured’s loss and timely paying both the Tree Doctor invoice and the Insured for the damage to the Property so it could begin making necessary repairs, the Insurance Company began its efforts to avoid its contractual obligations to fully compensate the Insured for the claim. The claim was assigned to an outcome-oriented estimator, Banks Yancey, who inspected the Property on May 18, 2024, although he was neither qualified nor capable of determining the true scope or value of the damages to the Property. Following the inspection, Mr. Yancey prepared an estimate that allows for roof replacement, together with interior repairs to Units C and D. Despite acknowledging the substantial damage to the Property, Mr. Yancy’s estimate drastically undervalues the damages and presumes the entirety of the damage can be repaired for only $84,865.57, after reduction for depreciation and application of the policy’s deductible. Following the inspection, the Insurance Company failed to provide any follow-up correspondence to the Insured with respect to the claim. In fact, the Carrier consistently refused to communicate with the Insured or its representatives and developed a pattern of ignoring the Insured’s communications. Finally, on June 18, 2024, the Insurance Company issued its Coverage Determination Letter acknowledging coverage for the loss and issuing payment based solely on Mr. Yancey’s singular inspection and estimate. It was immediately apparent that the Carrier undervalued the damage to pay the Insured less than the amount due under the terms of the Policy. Not only did the estimate grossly undervalue the costs associated with fully restoring the Property, but the estimate also allows only $3,045.60 for “tree removal from structure 4 men, 6 hours.” The egregiously low amount allocated to removal of the massive oak tree exemplifies that the Carrier failed to appreciate the magnitude of the removal job. In baselessly concluding the tree removal could be completed for $3,000, the Insurance Company intentionally disregarded Tree Doctor’s line-item invoice that details the enormous undertaking performed by Tree Doctor in using a crane to carefully remove the fallen tree in a timely manner to prevent additional damage to the covered Property and protect the Property from impending storms. Importantly, the Carrier failed to retain an expert to provide an opinion as to the real-world cost of completing such a massive tree removal and relied only on Mr. Yancey’s biased and unqualified opinion. The payment issued to the Insured was insufficient to address both the Tree Doctor invoice and allow for repairs to the Property. The Insured immediately expressed disagreement with the Carrier’s scope and valuation of the loss and requested the Carrier reconsider its position. The Insured retained Recon Restoration and Reconstruction (“Recon”) to address the overwhelming damage to the Property. Recon carefully inspected the Property and prepared comprehensive estimates outlining all the repairs necessary to restore the Property to pre-loss condition. Recon estimated the substantial interior repairs to the affected units to amount to $145,354.01, and replacement of the damaged roof and structural repairs at $36,876.18. Recon also identified additional damage to the trusses and subfloor in Unit C and prepared a supplemental estimate to address the additional repairs that totals $7,673.71, and made a list of non-salvageable items located within the Property, including appliances, furniture, shelving, supplies, etc. Finally, Recon addressed the substantial reasonable and necessary water and mold remediation necessary to dry out and treat the Property. The Insured was diligent to furnish the Insurance Company with photographs, estimates, invoices and receipts documenting the work performed and the true cost of repairs. The Insured also implored the Carrier to reconsider the insufficient payment made towards removal of the tree from the roof of the Property. However, as became commonplace, the Insurance Company failed to communicate in any meaningful way with the Insured or its representatives, despite continued follow-ups. On June 27, 2024, Chae Life, a certified arborist from Tree Doctor, wrote to the Carrier to request full payment for the “difficult and time-consuming job” that took multiple days to complete. Mr. Life explained the magnitude of the tree removal and questioned the Carrier’s unreasonable refusal to issue full payment. When the Carrier failed to respond, Mr. Life wrote again on July 10, 2023, to address the Carrier’s failure to timely pay Tree Doctor for the tree removal services completed at the Property. He explained that his multiple attempts to discuss the matter with both the desk adjuster and claims supervisor were consistently ignored. Mr. Life advised that a lien would be placed on the Property if the Carrier refused to compensate Tree Doctor for its unpaid invoice. Frustrated and concerned, the Insured pleaded with the desk adjuster to escalate the issue to a supervisor. The Insured penned a comprehensive email to the claims’ supervisor, Jeff Dobbelaire, explaining the issues and requesting the Insurance Company resolve the outstanding Tree Doctor invoice. Rather than retaining an expert capable of reviewing the magnitude of the tree removal job and the reasonableness of the Tree Doctor invoice, the Insurance Company sought to pick apart the Tree Doctor invoice by misrepresenting the coverages available under the Policy and alleging the Policy provides coverage only for “tree remov[al] from the roof, no costs associated with any cutting up, hauling or disposal, just the actual removal of the tree from the roof.” Both the Insured and Tree Doctor sought clarification time and again, requesting the Insurance Company appreciate the total scope of the job and clarify the line items within the Tree Doctor estimate that the Carrier disputed. Despite repeated follow-ups, the Carrier failed to provide an explanation and refused to issue any additional monies towards the Tree Doctor invoice. Finally, after months of unanswered emails and calls (that the desk adjuster claimed he “did not see,”), the Insurance Company wrote to the Insured to advise that only “the cost just to drop the tree for access to the roof” is covered, and to allege “[i]t certainly didn't take a full day and a half and seven laborers to drop the tree that was on the roof to the ground.” The Insurance Company refused to issue any additional monies over the “Xactimate standard cost for the tree removal,” although the Policy provides coverage for “the reasonable costs incurred . . . for necessary measures taken solely to protect covered property from further damage.” The Carrier ignored the Insured’s request for a joint meeting to discuss the issue. Dismayed by the Carrier’s oversimplification, the Insured endeavored to impart to the Carrier the magnitude of the tree removal process, reiterating that several companies refused the job because they did not have the manpower nor equipment required to remove the tree and its limbs without causing additional damage to the Property. The Insured further questioned how the field adjuster could estimate the equipment and manpower necessary to remove the tree, and the reasonable cost of such services, when the adjuster did not examine the tree during his inspection. Finally, the Insured asked the Carrier for clarification, requesting the additional information needed to reassess the payment issued and pay the balance of the Tree Doctor invoice. When the Insurance Company failed to provide clarification, Mr. Life from Tree Doctor sent correspondence to the Carrier advising, “the invoice has been meticulously broken down to account for the man hours and equipment used in the process,” and that “[i]t has now been over 90 days since the completion of the work, and unfortunately, we have yet to receive payment. As a result, a lien has been placed on the property. It is unfair to both our company and the [insured] who pay [its] premiums diligently to be left with the remaining bill due to the insurance company’s reluctance to cover the tree portion of the claim.” Shortly thereafter, the Insurance Company’s CFO, Jennifer Cotugno, responded to Mr. Life. However, she wholly failed to address the Carrier’s unreasonable refusal to issue payment for the Tree Doctor invoice and instead simply charged Tree Doctor with filing an improper lien pursuant to Fla. Stat. 627.7152(7)(a). Mr. Life replied, noting that Tree Doctor and the Insured had been seeking resolution of the issue for months and the Carrier refused to respond until a lien was placed on the Property. Still, the Carrier refused to reconsider its unreasonable payment. Aside from the abject failure to adjust the Tree Doctor invoice in good faith, the Insurance Company similarly failed its Insured by refusing to properly adjust the remainder of the claim. The payment received from the Insurance Company was quickly exhausted by the extensive repairs the Property required, so the Insured continued imploring the Insurance Company to reconsider its valuation of the claim based on evidence of the true costs incurred in making the repairs. The Insured provided the Insurance Company with ample evidence of the overwhelming damage to the Property and the structural repairs, interior repairs, and mitigation necessary to restore the Property to pre-loss condition, but the Carrier refused to consider any of the evidence provided and instead remained steadfast in its reliance on Mr. Yancey’s unqualified estimation of the damage. The Carrier’s careless adjustment is evidenced by its refusal to timely respond to the Insured’s and its representative’s communications, its evasive responses to the Insured’s pointed questions related to coverages available under the Policy, its refusal to consider the evidence provided by the Insured showing the real-world cost of repairs to the Property, its refusal to issue payment for recoverable depreciation despite evidence of repairs, and its unnecessarily duplicative requests for information the Insured provided time and again (such as multiple requests for information related to mold remediation, and requests for a “public adjuster’s estimate,” although the Insured is not represented by a public adjuster, and attempted to resolve its claim without having to contract away the funds needed to restore its Property to its pre-loss condition). When the Carrier failed to take any steps to reassess the insufficient payment issued on the claim and consistently ignored the Insured’s requests for reconsideration, representatives from Recon stepped in to implore the Carrier to issue adequate payment on the claim. Repair Division Director, Thomas MacDonald, persisted in attempts to discuss the scope and amount of the Insurance Company’s estimate as compared with the Recon estimate reflecting the actual real-world costs associated with making repairs to the Property, but connecting with the desk adjuster continued to prove difficult. When the desk adjuster failed to respond, Buddy Johnson, the Regional Director for Recon, wrote to the Insurance Company to express frustration with the Carrier’s unreasonable delay and refusal to acknowledge the true cost of repairs to the Property. He noted that the Insured and contractors had provided the Insurance Company with all information requested to adjust the claim, yet the Carrier continued to delay the adjustment and refused to timely communicate with the Insured or its representatives. Exasperated, the Insured wrote to the Insurance Company to voice concerns with the Carrier’s refusal to fairly adjust the claim. The Insured requested a new adjuster be assigned to the file, noting, “John’s communication and follow up has been less than desirable and we are simply trying to repair our property, which has been going on for months now. After paying for coverage and being a customer with you all this is truly disheartening.” Nevertheless, the Carrier failed to provide any meaningful response and continued to unreasonably delay the adjustment to the detriment of its Insured. Notwithstanding the Insured’s complete cooperation at every step of the adjustment, the Insurance Company failed to uphold its duty to adjust the loss and assist the Insured in restoring the storm-damaged Property. The Carrier’s unreasonable delay of the adjustment resulted in additional, exacerbated mold damage to the Property that would not have occurred had the Carrier timely issued sufficient payment to make repairs. Instead of retaining competent and qualified adjusters and experts capable of assessing the full scope and valuation of the damage, the Insurance Company relied on a single inspection conducted by an unqualified field adjuster resulting in an egregious undervaluation of the loss. The Insurance Company then declined to reinspect the Property with a qualified expert and refused to consider Recon’s evidence of the actual cost of repairs to the Property. The Carrier misrepresented the coverages available under the Policy to pay the Insured less than the amount due under the terms of the Policy, and further misrepresented the coverages available related to the tree removal completed by Tree Doctor to avoid issuing due payment for Tree Doctor’s invoice. The Carrier’s excessive delay and unjustified refusal to properly indemnify the Insured for the loss has resulted in prolonged loss of rental profits, as the Insured cannot relet the Property until repairs are completed. The Carrier’s refusal to resolve the claim forced the Insured to retain an attorney to protect its contractual rights under the Policy. The Insured has and will continue to incur and unnecessarily suffer damages, including costs to prosecute this claim, attorney’s fees, and delay damages if the Insurance Company does not retain competent, qualified, and unbiased representatives, participate in good faith adjustment practices, and communicate with the Insured’s representative(s) to negotiate a fair compromise of the claim within 60 days of the filing of this Civil Remedy Notice. The Insurance Company’s pattern of failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims constitutes a violation of 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a). The Carrier’s misrepresentation of pertinent facts and insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue constitutes a violation of 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b). The failure to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims constitutes a violation of 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c). The failure to promptly notify the Insured of additional information necessary for the processing of the claim or to clearly explain the nature of requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary is a violation of 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g)-(h). The Insurance Company’s unreasonable delay and failure to promptly settle the claim establishes violations of sections 626.9541(1)(i)(4), 624.155(1)(b)(1), and 624.155(1)(b)(3). Further, by providing the Insured an estimate that intentionally and grossly misrepresents the value of the Insured’s damages and misrepresenting coverages available under the Policy, the Insurance Company violated section 626.9541(1)(i)(2), Florida Statutes (“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;”). The actions taken by the Insurance Company in the handling and adjustment of the claim giving rise to the violations addressed herein, including the established pattern of ignoring communications from the Insured and its representatives, disregarding clear evidence of covered damages, discounting the Insured’s evidence of the true cost to make repairs, delaying adjustment and issuance of monies due that resulted in exacerbated damages, failing to retain qualified and competent adjusters and experts to fully and fairly adjust the claim, and misrepresenting the value of the Insured’s claim and the coverages available under the Policy to justify paying the Insured less than the amount due under the Policy occur with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice and these acts are willful, wanton, and in gross disregard for the rights of its Insured. The Insurance Company’s actions amount to, but are not limited to: A. “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;” (Fla. Stat. 624.155(1)(b)(1)). B. “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;” (Fla. Stat. sec. 624.155(1)(b)(3)) C. Claim Delay; D. Claim Denial; and E. Unfair Trade Practices The Insurance Company’s actions further amount to unfair claim settlement practices: 1. 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; (Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(2)). 2. Committing or performing with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice any of the following: a. Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims; (Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a)) b. Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue; (Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b)) c. Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims; (Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c)) d. Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information; (Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d)) e. Failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and, as to partial coverage, the dollar amount or extent of coverage, or failing to provide a written statement that the claim is being investigated, upon the written request of the insured within 30 days after proof-of-loss statements have been completed; (Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e)) 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; (Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f)) g. Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim; (Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g)) h. Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary; (Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h)). 3. Failing to pay undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed under first-party property insurance policies within 90 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 an act of God, prevented by the impossibility of performance, or due to actions by the insured or claimant that constitute fraud, lack of cooperation, or intentional misrepresentation regarding the claim for which benefits are owed. (Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(4)). In addition to the above statutory violations, the Insurance Company’s adjuster violated the following ethical requirements of Florida Administrative Code 69B-220.201: (3) Code of Ethics . . . An adjuster shall put the duty for fair and honest treatment of the claimant above the adjuster’s own interests in every instance. The following are standards of conduct that define ethical behavior, and shall constitute a code of ethics that shall be binding on all adjusters: (b) An adjuster shall treat all claimants equally. 2. An adjuster shall adjust all claims strictly in accordance with the insurance contract. (c) An adjuster shall not approach investigations, adjustments, and settlements in a manner prejudicial to the insured. (d) An adjuster shall make truthful and unbiased reports of the facts after making a complete investigation. (e) An adjuster shall handle every adjustment and settlement with honesty and integrity, and allow a fair adjustment or settlement to all parties without any remuneration to himself except that to which he is legally entitled. (f) An adjuster, upon undertaking the handling of a claim, shall act with dispatch and due diligence in achieving a proper disposition of the claim. (o) An adjuster shall not undertake the adjustment of any claim concerning which the adjuster is not currently competent and knowledgeable as to the terms and conditions of the insurance coverage, or which otherwise exceeds the adjuster’s current expertise. In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. During the adjustment of the Insured’s claim, the Insurance Company breached this duty by failing to adhere to and comply with the above referenced obligations. To cure the defects outlined above, the Insurance Company must: A. Tender all insurance proceeds due and owing to the Insured that would reasonably place the Property back into a pre-loss condition and fully indemnify the Insured for its loss; B. Timely communicate with the Insured and the Insured’s representative(s) to complete the adjustment of the loss by participating in good faith negotiations to reach an agreement relating to the parties’ scope and amount dispute; C. Immediately issue payment for statutory interest for any late payments; D. Act fairly and honestly towards the Insured and with due regard for its interests; E. Hire a fair, unbiased, and qualified adjuster(s) and expert(s) to properly assess the Insured’s damages; F. Timely and substantively respond to the Insured’s and its representative(s)’s communications; G. Issue a supplemental payment and provide a written explanation and detail of the payments issued; H. Timely adjust the claim with the Insured and avoid/limit any additional delay, costs, and prejudice that the Insurance Company’s conduct above has caused and continues to cause the Insured; I. Correct the misrepresentations regarding the scope and amount of the Insured’s loss and the coverages available under the Policy; J. Participate in good faith claims adjustment to avoid the Insured incurring unnecessary costs of litigation; K. Timely and fully pay all outstanding invoices for covered work completed at the Property; L. Release payment for withheld recoverable depreciation. This Civil Remedy Notice is given to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
tsalehi@salehiboyer.com 10-14-2025 VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION: civilremedy@myfloridacfo.com Florida Department of Insurance Civil Remedy Section 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Re: Complainant: Resilient Black Love LLC Policyholder: Resilient Black Love LLC Filer: Valorie Chavin, Esq. Claim #: 63181 Policy #: FL07321849 CRN filing No.: 786409 CRN filing date: 10/11/24 (original); 8/17/25 (supplement) To whom it may concern at The Department of Financial Services: We write on behalf of Safepoint Insurance Company (hereafter “Safepoint”) to respond to the Supplement to Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations No. 786409 previously submitted to the Department of Financial Services (hereafter “DFS”) by Valorie Chavin, Esq., on behalf of Resilient Black Love LLC (hereafter “Complainant” or “Insured”). The DFS accepted the original Civil Remedy Notice for Filing number 786409 on October 11, 2024, and Safepoint responded on December 10, 2024. The Complainant posted supplemental information in the comments field on August 17, 2025 (hereafter “CRN”). Safepoint objects to the propriety and validity of Complainant’s purported “supplement” to the original Civil Remedy Notice, which was posted as a comment on the Department’s online form after the 60-day cure period for the original Civil Remedy Notice. The “supplement” to the original Civil Remedy Notice does not comply with Fla. Stat. § 624.155 or Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. 69J-123.002 and is defective to the extent that it purports to supplement or renew the original Civil Remedy Notice submitted by the Complainant on October 11, 2024 or otherwise fulfill the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 624.155. The original Civil Remedy Notice was filed on October 11, 2024, and “the Department [] considers the form to be ‘filed’ when the insured clicks the ‘submit’ button at the end of the electronic form,” at which point a filing number is assigned and the 60-day cure period begins. See Harper v. Geico General Ins. Co., 272 So. 3d 448, 451 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019). Thus, the filing of Civil Remedy Notice 786409 was complete as of October 11, 2024. The Department only requires notification of the outcome of the Civil Remedy Notice and the comments field is intended for that purpose. See Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations FAQ, https://www.myfloridacfo.com/division/consumers/civilremedy/crfaqs (follow “How do I add more information or respond to a Civil Remedy Notice?” hyperlink) (last visited October 7, 2025); see also Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. 69J-123.002 (“The civil remedy notice required by Section 624.155, F.S., shall be electronically submitted on Form DFS-10-363 . . . . Any written communications between the parties to the civil remedy notice, which are intended for inclusion in the Department's electronic record, shall be electronically added to the existing Form DFS-10-363 specific to the notice being addressed.” Accordingly, the “supplement” that was added to the comments field on August 17, 2025 does not meet the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 624.155 as a standalone Civil Remedy Notice and should be treated as a nullity. Subject to and without waiving any objections, Safepoint incorporates its original response dated December 10, 2024 to the original Civil Remedy Notice dated October 11, 2024 and specifically denies all allegations of violation or wrongdoing presented in the supplemental CRN as Safepoint has not violated any statute or rule. Should you have any questions regarding this matter or need anything further, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Regards, s/ Donald S. Lavigne Donald S. Lavigne, Esquire On behalf of Safepoint Insurance Company
vchavin@cmslawgroup.com 08-17-2025 This supplemental Civil Remedy Notice appends and incorporates by reference the Civil Remedy Notice previously filed on behalf of Resilient Black Love, LLC (the “Insured”) against Safepoint Insurance Company (the “Insurance Company” or “Carrier”) on October 11, 2024. The original Civil Remedy Notice charges the Carrier with either inexcusable negligence or an intentional decision to elevate its own interests over those of its Insured when it refused to properly investigate, adjust, and fully compensate the Insured for claim number 63181. Since the filing of the original Notice, the Insurance Company has failed to cure any of the bad faith violations identified therein. Instead, it has compounded its misconduct by taking additional unwarranted actions and persisting in an untenable policy interpretation in furtherance of its ongoing efforts to deprive the Insured of benefits owed under Policy No. FL07321849, demonstrating a pattern and practice that has been implemented in reckless disregard of not only the Insured’s rights, but occurs with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice that is willful, wanton, and in gross and reckless disregard for the rights of all of its insureds. The following policy language is at issue: COVERAGES . . . G. Other Coverages . . . 9. "Fungi", Wet Or Dry Rot, Yeast Or Bacteria a. We will pay up to $10,000 for: (1) The total of all loss payable under the Coverages section of your Policy caused by "fungi", wet or dry rot, yeast or bacteria; (2) The cost to remove "fungi", wet or dry rot, yeast or bacteria from property covered under the Coverages section of your Policy; (3) The cost to tear out and replace any part of the building or other covered property as needed to gain access to the "fungi", wet or dry rot, yeast or bacteria; and (4) The cost of testing of air or property to confirm the absence, presence or level of "fungi", wet or dry rot, yeast or bacteria whether performed prior to, during or after removal, repair, restoration or replacement. The cost of such testing will be provided only to the extent that there is a reason to believe that there is the presence of "fungi", wet or dry rot, yeast or bacteria. b. The coverage described in a. only applies: (1) When such loss or costs are a result of a Peril Insured Against that occurs during the policy period; and (2) Only if all reasonable means were used to save and preserve the property from further damage at and after the time the Peril Insured Against occurred. c. $10,000 is the most we will pay for the total of all loss or costs payable, including Coverage D Fair Rental Value and Coverage E Additional Living Expense, under this Other Coverage G.9., regardless of the: (1) Number of locations insured; (2) Number of occurrences or claims made; or (3) Number of insureds. d. If there is covered loss or damage to covered property, not caused, in whole or in part, by "fungi", wet or dry rot, yeast or bacteria, loss payment will not be limited by the terms of this Other Coverage G.9., except to the extent that "fungi", wet or dry rot, yeast or bacteria causes an increase in the loss, any increase in fair rental value or any increase in additional living expense. Any such increase in the loss will be subject to the terms of this Other Coverage G.9. e. This coverage does not cover loss or damage which arises out of the transmission of a disease or the exposure to a disease. f. This coverage does not increase the limit of liability applying to the damaged covered property. GENERAL EXCLUSIONS A. We do not insure for loss caused directly or indirectly by any of the following. Such loss is excluded regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence to the loss. . . . 10. "Fungi", Wet Or Dry Rot, Yeast Or Bacteria "Fungi", Wet Or Dry Rot, Yeast Or Bacteria means the presence, growth, proliferation, spread or any activity of "fungi", wet or dry rot, yeast or bacteria. This Exclusion A.10. does not apply: . . . b. To the extent coverage is provided for under COVERAGES in Other Coverages G.9. "Fungi", Wet Or Dry Rot, Yeast Or Bacteria, with respect to loss caused by a Peril Insured Against other than fire or lightning. Direct loss by a Peril Insured Against resulting from "fungi", wet or dry rot, yeast or bacteria is covered. However, there is no coverage which arises out of the transmission of a disease or exposure to a disease. FACTS: On May 10, 2024, the Insured Property sustained catastrophic damage when a severe windstorm spawned tornadoes that uprooted a massive oak tree, driving it through the roof and allowing hours of relentless rainfall to saturate and devastate the interior. The Insured submitted a claim to the Insurance Company, hopeful that the Carrier would appreciate the overwhelming damage throughout the Property and promptly compensate it for the loss. Unfortunately, the Insurance Company failed to properly adjust the claim, unnecessarily delaying the adjustment, refusing to meaningfully communicate with its Insured, and relying only on a biased field adjuster’s unqualified estimation of the damage to the Property without any consideration of the evidence provided by the Insured showing the real-world cost of repairs. Ultimately, the Carrier egregiously understated both the scope of damage to the Property and the value of the repairs and issued a woefully insufficient payment that deprived the Insured of the opportunity to restore the Property to its pre-loss condition. When the Carrier refused to take any steps to reassess the botched adjustment and insufficient payment, the Insured had no choice but to retain counsel to protect its rights and thereafter filed its Civil Remedy Notice on October 11, 2024 (“CRN”). On October 15, 2024, Counsel for the Insured submitted a letter of representation advising that the Insured had already incurred costs far exceeding the Carrier’s $84,865.57 Coverage A payment in mitigating damages and undertaking repairs to the Property. Counsel expressly requested that the Carrier reevaluate its grossly inadequate valuation and issue supplemental payment to properly compensate the Insured for the full extent of its loss. In support, Counsel provided documentation evidencing incurred expenses, outstanding repair costs, and lost rental income, all of which made clear that the Carrier had drastically underpaid the claim. Despite the ongoing dispute as to scope and amount, Counsel notified the Carrier that the Insured would continue mitigating its damages, noting that the Property had been completely gutted, with drying equipment operating and the roof tarped. Roof repairs were nearing completion, after which mold remediation and interior build-back would proceed. Counsel urged the Carrier to reinspect the Property with a qualified expert capable of accurately determining the true scope and value of damages, particularly in light of the substantial costs already borne by the Insured. On October 18, 2024, the Insurance Company advised that it had referred the claim to Maxwell Engineers, Inc. for reinspection, which occurred on October 25, 2024. During that inspection, the Carrier’s engineers were shown the extensive wind and water damage to the Property, as well as the resulting pervasive mold growth. Following the inspection, Counsel for the Insured diligently followed up with the Carrier’s adjuster, providing supporting documentation and promptly responding to all inquiries. On November 6, 2024, the Insurance Company requested a line-item estimate for mold remediation to Units C and D, which Counsel supplied the very same day. While awaiting the Carrier’s response, Counsel continued to provide detailed updates on the status of repairs, and the Carrier’s adjuster assured counsel that the engineer’s report and the Carrier’s supplemental decision would be forthcoming. Instead, on December 10, 2024, the Insurance Company submitted a perfunctory response to the Insured’s Civil Remedy Notice, categorically denying any wrongdoing in its adjustment of the claim. With it clear that the Carrier intended to persist in its efforts to withhold just compensation, the Insured had no alternative but to file a Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation on December 16, 2024. On December 17, 2024, the Insurance Carrier issued its final coverage determination, brazenly doubling down on its bad faith conduct, willfully clinging to an indefensible coverage position, and retaliating against its Insured’s desperate decision to retain counsel to challenge the Insurance Company’s coverage determination in a calculated effort to deprive its Insured of the benefits and protections it is contractually and legally owed and punish its Insured for its retention of counsel and/or the filing of its CRN. The December 17, 2024, letter refuses the Insured’s request for a supplemental payment to make it whole following the devastating storm, and instead audaciously alleges that the Insured had somehow been overpaid by the Carrier, a position that is as baseless as it is indicative of the Carrier’s bad faith. By clinging to this indefensible position, the Carrier limited recovery to a mere $10,000 for more than $160,000 in interior damages, baselessly attributing all damage to Units C and D to mold while willfully disregarding the undeniable fact that the loss originated from catastrophic water intrusion after a massive oak tree tore open the roof, allowing hours of rain to pour into the Property. The Carrier further contended that because the mold protocol reflected pervasive mold in Units C and D, the Policy’s $10,000 mold limitation applied to bar recovery for any additional interior damages. This interpretation is not only unreasonable but directly contrary to the Policy’s terms. The $10,000 mold limitation does not supplant or reduce the applicable coverage for the initial covered water loss; rather, it applies only to the costs of mold remediation and mold-related repairs, not to the underlying water damage repairs that are expressly covered under the Policy’s Coverage A limits. By collapsing these two distinct coverages into a single $10,000 cap, the Carrier has improperly distorted the Policy in a deliberate effort to minimize its payment obligations. The Carrier’s self-serving policy interpretation limiting available coverage to mold limits when obvious water damage throughout results in the proliferation of some overlapping mold growth prompted the Insured to file its lawsuit against the Carrier for breach of the insurance policy on December 31, 2024. Even in litigation, the Insurance Company has persisted in advancing this erroneous and opportunistic position, contending that because mold damage overlapped with the already-acknowledged water damage to the Property, the $10,000 mold sublimit bars any further recovery. In deposition on July 10, 2025, the Insurance Company’s Chief Claims Officer, Jennifer Cotugno, the person “responsible for all aspects of the company’s claims functions,” admitted that the Carrier does not dispute the Property sustained rainwater intrusion through roof openings created by a fallen tree. She further confirmed that the independent adjuster who performed the initial inspection did not even identify the presence of mold at that time. See Deposition of Jennifer Cotugno, at pp. 46, 51. Consistent with that fact, the Carrier’s initial payment to the Insured included no allocation under the policy’s mold coverage. See Deposition of Jennifer Cotugno, at pp. 53-54, 60. Predictably, mold later developed in areas already saturated by rainwater. It is axiomatic that subsequent mold growth does not erase or replace the underlying water damage; rather, the affected areas were plainly damaged by both water and then mold – arguably mold that grew, at least in part, as a direct result of the Insurance Company’s delay in the proper adjustment of the Insured’s loss. Nevertheless, the Carrier appears to have strategically seized on the presence of mold as a pretext to short-change and punish its Insured, asserting that because the interior reflected both water and mold damage, recovery is confined to the $10,000 mold sublimit. The Carrier’s interpretation effectively disregards more than $160,000 in covered water damage and conflates two distinct coverages into a single limit. Ms. Cotugno, on behalf of the Carrier, referenced the Policy’s “anti-concurrent loss” provision, arguing that it extends the Policy’s $10,000 mold sublimit to apply not only to the mold damages, but also to the underlying covered water damages. The Policy provides: GENERAL EXCLUSIONS A. We do not insure for loss caused directly or indirectly by any of the following. Such loss is excluded regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence to the loss. . . . 10. "Fungi", Wet Or Dry Rot, Yeast Or Bacteria "Fungi", Wet Or Dry Rot, Yeast Or Bacteria means the presence, growth, proliferation, spread or any activity of "fungi", wet or dry rot, yeast or bacteria. This Exclusion A.10. does not apply: . . . b. To the extent coverage is provided for under COVERAGES in Other Coverages G.9. "Fungi", Wet Or Dry Rot, Yeast Or Bacteria, with respect to loss caused by a Peril Insured Against other than fire or lightning. Direct loss by a Peril Insured Against resulting from "fungi", wet or dry rot, yeast or bacteria is covered. . . . COVERAGES . . . G. Other Coverages . . . 9. "Fungi", Wet Or Dry Rot, Yeast Or Bacteria a. We will pay up to $10,000 for: (1) The total of all loss payable under the Coverages section of your Policy caused by "fungi", wet or dry rot, yeast or bacteria; . . . d. If there is covered loss or damage to covered property, not caused, in whole or in part, by "fungi", wet or dry rot, yeast or bacteria, loss payment will not be limited by the terms of this Other Coverage G.9., except to the extent that "fungi", wet or dry rot, yeast or bacteria causes an increase in the loss, any increase in fair rental value or any increase in additional living expense. Any such increase in the loss will be subject to the terms of this Other Coverage G.9. In furtherance of this policy interpretation, Ms. Cotugno acknowledged that the mold protocol identified both water and mold damage to Units C and D, but the presence of mold automatically capped recovery to $10,000, regardless of the underlying water damage: Q: But if the water damage occurred before the mold damage, the property was first damaged by water. Water damage occurs before mold growth. So, why would there be no cover for the property for the water damage that occurs before mold growth? MR. LAVIGNE:· Form. A: Because of the policy language? . . . Q: But those same documents identified water damage to the units, correct? A: Water and mold. And again, the exclusion says, if mold contributes in any sequence to the loss and per the documents that the Insured gave us, mold contributed to this loss to the extent that both units needed to be gutted because of it. So, it is therefore excluded and then there's this additional coverage that says, but we'll give you up to $10,000. See Deposition of Jennifer Cotugno, at pp. 113-4, 121-2. The absurdity of the Carrier’s self-interested policy interpretation is shocking and cannot be overstated. Courts interpreting nearly identical policy language have confirmed that while mold recovery is capped at $10,000, water damage remains covered up to the policy limits. In Murray v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 259369, 17 (S.D. Fla. 2021), the court held that damages caused by fungi were limited to $10,000, but damages caused by the underlying water discharge were separately recoverable up to the full policy limits. Similarly, in Hobbs v. US Coastal Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86484, 8 (D.N.J. 2018), the court upheld the carrier’s payment of all water damages in full while limiting mold damages to $10,000, rejecting the insureds’ contention that all mold-related losses should be covered as part of the water loss. Together, these cases underscore the well-established principle that the mold sublimit applies only to mold remediation costs, not to the broader water damage that gave rise to the mold. In fact, the express language included in the Policy makes it clear that “[i]f there is covered loss or damage to covered property, not caused, in whole or in part, by ‘fungi’, wet or dry rot, yeast or bacteria, loss payment will not be limited by the terms of this Other Coverage G.9., except to the extent that "fungi", wet or dry rot, yeast or bacteria causes an increase in the loss, any increase in fair rental value or any increase in additional living expense. Any such increase in the loss will be subject to the terms of this Other Coverage G.9.” (Emphasis added). If the Insurance Company’s admitted interpretation of the Policy was correct, it would render this portion of the Additional Mold Coverage superfluous. The Insurance Company’s interpretation of its policy is not only contrary to the plain language of the contract, but it is also a transparent attempt to manipulate coverage to its own financial advantage at the expense of its Insured and apparently punish its Insured for its defiance. By collapsing distinct coverages and treating obvious water damage as though it were subsumed entirely within the mold sublimit, the Carrier has distorted the Policy’s intent and deprived its Insured of the very protection for which it paid premiums. This self-serving construction is unsupported by the policy language, inconsistent with established case law, and directly undermines the Insured’s right to be made whole. The Carrier’s refusal to honor the full scope of coverage owed demonstrates a calculated effort to underpay the claim, evidencing bad faith conduct to the severe detriment of its Insured. Based on the Insurance Company’s admitted and documented misinterpretation of its own Policy provisions, it is clear that this conduct occurs with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice, and these acts are willful, wanton, and in gross disregard for the rights of its insureds. This pattern of conduct confirms that the Carrier’s actions amount to, but are not limited to: A. “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 his or his interests;” (Fla. Stat. 624.155(1)(b)(1); B. “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;” (Fla. Stat. sec. 624.155(1)(b)(3)) C. Claim Delay; D. Claim Denial; and E. Unfair Trade Practices To cure these violations, the Carrier must immediately: 1. Withdraw its unreasonable coverage determination issued on December 17, 2024; 2. Acknowledge the existence of coverage under the policy for both the water damage to the Property up to the policy’s coverage limits, and coverage for mold damages up to the policy’s $10,000 sublimit; 3. Tender policy benefits due and owing to the Insured; 4. Tender interest owed on any late payments issued; and 5. Compensate the Insured for all other damage that it has suffered as a direct and proximate result of the Insurance Company’s statutory violations and retaliatory actions, which are ripe because the Carrier failed to timely cure its statutory violations after being placed on notice in the Insured’s CRN nearly ten months ago on October 11, 2024. As evidenced by the above and the Carrier’s continued misconduct, its defense of the pending litigation, and its admitted misinterpretation of the policies that it has issued to its Florida consumers, the Carrier continues to violate Florida laws and cause damage to its Insured and other similarly situated. This Civil Remedy Notice is given to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section.
mbakas@safepointins.com 12-10-2024 December 10, 2024 VIA EMAIL: VCHAVIN@CMSLAWGROUP.COM Valorie S. Chavin, Esq. 12955 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 201 North Miami, FL 33181 RE: Insured: RESILIENT BLACK LOVE, LLC Claim Number: 63181 Policy: FL07321849 Date of Loss: 5/10/2024 CRN Filing Number: 786409 Dear Sir/Madam: This is the formal response of SafePoint Insurance Company (“SafePoint”) to the purported Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (“Purported Notice”) that was filed on behalf of RESILIENT BLACK LOVE, LLC (“Complainant”). The Florida Department of Financial Services accepted the Purported Notice, in form only, on October 11, 2024. The Purported Notice was filed in connection with an alleged insurance claim for property damage by the Insured. The Purported Notice names SafePoint and alleges Claim Denial, Claim Delay, Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer and Unfair Trade Practice allegedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 626.9541(1)(i)(2) and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a); (b); (c); (d); (g); (h) Florida Statutes and Florida Admin Codes: 69B-220.201. The Purported Notice is a legal nullity for the four reasons discussed below. ^ 1 ^ 1 SafePoint 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. The Notice fails to meet the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 624.155 on the following grounds. 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. Complainant is the Insured and not third-party; therefore, the Purported Notice must include specific language from the subject policy that is relevant to the alleged violations. It does not. Rather, the Purported Notice lists numerous provisions from the Policy without any specificity. General, vague and overbroad references to policy provisions does not satisfy the specificity required by § 624.155(3)(b)(4), Fla. Stat. As such, the Purported Notice is deficient as a matter of law. This deficiency applies to all allegations in the Purported Notice, including but not limited to Claim Denial, Claim Delay, Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer and Unfair Trade Practice allegedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 626.9541(1)(i)(2) and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a); (b); (c); (d); (g); (h) Florida Statutes and Florida Admin Codes: 69B-220.201. On March 3, 2021, the Fourth District Court of Appeal issued a relevant opinion in Junior Julien v. United Property and Casualty Insurance Company, No. 4D19-2763. 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 Section 624.155(3)(b)(2), Florida Statutes, requires that the CRN state with specificity the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation. The Purported Notice does not supply specific facts or circumstances that explain the allegations. Rather, the Purported Notice contains incorrect facts and fails to explain how the purported facts constitute violations of Florida law. For example, the Purported Notice states, “Claim Denial,” “Claim Delay”, “Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information[.]” and “the Insurance Company failed to uphold its duty to adjust the loss and assist the Insured in restoring the storm-damaged Property.” However, these statements are entirely conclusory, and inaccurate. This is a claim for damages to the property due to a tree falling on the roof that was reported on May 10, 2024, the same day as the alleged date of loss. On May 18, 2024, SafePoint timely inspected the subject property and identified damages as being related to the reported cause of loss. Contrary to the assertions in the Purported Notice, the claim was not “delayed” or “denied” rather coverage was opened and SafePoint prepared an estimate in the amount of $100,732.58 under Coverage A – Dwelling, less recoverable depreciation $13,367.01, less non-recoverable deprecation $1,839.76, less $2,500.00 deductible for a total of $84,865.57. As such, on June 18, 2024, the Insured was issued payment for the covered portion of the loss as noted above in full compliance with the terms and condition of the Policy. Further, an additional payment in the amount of $2,790.00 was made to the Insured for loss of rent regarding Units C and D for the months of June and July pursuant to the Policy. Finally, the Purported Notice makes boilerplate recitations of statutes, administrative codes and conclusory statements without the requisite specificity. Specificity is of particular importance for this Purported Notice as Complainant generally alleges that SafePoint “[m]isrepresent[ed] pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to the coverages at issue.” However, the Purported Notice does not set forth any facts regarding any misrepresentations made by SafePoint and does not identify the person or persons who made such misrepresentations. It is evident that the statement of facts falls short of the specificity required by Fla. Stat. §624.155. The above noted deficiencies apply to all allegations in the Purported Notice, including but not limited to Claim Denial, Claim Delay, Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer and Unfair Trade Practice allegedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 626.9541(1)(i)(2) and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a); (b); (c); (d); (g); (h) Florida Statutes and Florida Admin Codes: 69B-220.201. STATUTORY ALLEGATIONS 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. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 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. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 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. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b): Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c): Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d): Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e): Failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and, as to partial coverage, the dollar amount or extent of coverage, or failing to provide a written statement that the claim is being investigated, upon the written request of the insured within 30 days after proof-of-loss statements have been completed. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g): Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h): Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 626.9541(1)(i)(4): Failing to pay undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed under first-party property insurance policies within 90 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 an act of God, prevented by the impossibility of performance, or due to actions by the insured or claimant that constitute fraud, lack of cooperation, or intentional misrepresentation regarding the claim for which benefits are owed. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. Florida Admin Codes: 69B-220.201. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced administrative code. The allegations set forth in the Purported Notice are denied as they are mere conclusory allegations unsupported by facts, devoid of logic and intended solely to tarnish SafePoint’s name and reputation. SafePoint has at all times, acted fairly, honestly and in good faith in its dealings with the Complainant. While an insurance carrier is required to settle claims that should be settled, it is not required to settle claims that are legitimately contested. SafePoint unequivocally denies each and every allegation asserted in the Purported Notice. At no time has SafePoint breached any duty to the Complainant. An insurer is not required to pay whatever amount the Insured demands. SafePoint did not fail to promptly settle the claim or attempt to settle the claim in order to influence settlement under a different portion of the policy. SafePoint conducted a reasonable and prudent investigation of the claim and acted upon all communications from the Complainant. SafePoint promptly and appropriately communicated with the Complainant and provided explanations for the actions and decisions that were made. SafePoint retained a field adjuster, conducted an inspection of the subject property to investigate the Complainant’s claim. Thereafter, Safepoint made a coverage decision and issued payment to Complainant for the covered portion of the loss. Notwithstanding the deficiencies in, and the invalidity of, the Purported Notice, SafePoint denies any wrongdoing. It specifically denies that it committed the acts asserted, or violated Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Codes, as alleged in the Purported Notice. Please be advised, by this letter, SafePoint 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, SafePoint 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/Ari Zeltzer Ari A. Zeltzer, Esq. Staff Counsel SafePoint Insurance Cc: Florida Department of Financial Services
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