Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     787459
Filing Accepted:  10/18/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
STEWART   First Name   LORI AND JOSEPH
Street Address * 12541 HAMMOCK POINTE CIRCLE
City, State Zip * CLERMONT, FL 34711
Email Address * CFAUNTLEROY@FSATLAW.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   STEWART   First Name   LORI AND JOSEPH
Policy # * 59C2Z5882 Claim #* 5966G251X
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* FAUNTLEROY First Name * CHRISTOPHER Initial B
Street Address* 100 S ASHLEY DRIVE, SUITE 600
City, State Zip* TAMPA , FLORIDA 33602
Email Address * CFAUNTLEROY@FSATLAW.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10739
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY AND ITS ADJUSTERS AND WILLIAM JOHNSTON
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
Claim Delay
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Unfair Trade Practice
* Statutory provision(s) which the insurer allegedly violated.
 
624.155(1)(b)(1) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests.
626.9541(1)(i)(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)(f) Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of the basis in the insurance policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement.
626.9541(1)(i)(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.

SECTION I – PROPERTY COVERAGES COVERAGE A – DWELLING 1. Dwelling. We cover the dwelling and materials and supplies located on or adjacent to the residence premises for use in the construction, alteration, or repair of the dwelling or other structures on the residence premises. LOSS SETTLEMENT COVERAGE A – DWELLING 1. A1 – Replacement Cost Loss Settlement – Similar Construction. a. We will pay the cost to repair or replace with similar construction and for the same use on the premises shown in the Declarations, the damaged part of the property covered under SECTION I – PROPERTY COVERAGES, COVERAGE A – DWELLING, except for wood fences, subject to the following: (1) we will pay only the actual cash value at the time of the loss prior to repair or replacement of the damaged part of the property, up to the applicable limit of liability shown in the Declarations, not to exceed the cost to repair or replace the damaged part of the property; (2) in addition, we will pay any remaining covered additional amounts you actually and necessarily incur to perform such repair or replacement as work is performed and expenses are incurred and submitted, or an amount up to the applicable limit of liability shown in the Declarations, whichever is less. There will be no deduction for depreciation; (3) we will not pay for increased costs resulting from enforcement of any ordinance or law regulating the construction, repair or demolition of a building or other structure, except as provided under OPTIONAL POLICY PROVISIONS, Option OL – Building Ordinance or Law Coverage; and (4) if a total loss occurs to the dwelling used principally as a private residence on a residence premises shown in the Declarations, payment on a replacement cost basis will not require repair or replacement of the damaged property. There will be no deduction for depreciation. LOSS PAYMENT Loss Payment. We will adjust all losses with you. We will pay you unless some other person is named in the policy or is legally entitled to receive payment. Loss will be payable upon the earlier of the following: a. 20 days after we receive your proof of loss and reach agreement with you; or b. 60 days after we receive your proof of loss and: (1) there is an entry of a final judgment; or (2) there is a filing of an appraisal award with us. If we do not pay or deny a loss within 90 days after we receive notice of an initial, reopened, or supplemental property insurance claim from you and no factors beyond our control would reasonably prevent us from making payment, interest will be paid in accordance with Section 627.70131(5) of the Florida Insurance Code. ***ADDITIONAL STATUTORY PROVISIONS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN VIOLATED ARE AS FOLLOWS:*** §624.155(1)(B)(1) Any person may bring a civil action against an insurer when such person is damaged: By the commission of any of the following acts by the insurer: 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 towards its insured and with due regard for her interests; 2. Making claims payments to insures or beneficiaries not accompanied by a statement setting forth the coverage under which payments are being made; or 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. §624.155 (5) No punitive damages shall be awarded under this section unless the acts giving rise to the violation occur with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice and these acts are: (a) Willful, wanton, and malicious; (b) In reckless disregard for the rights of any insured; or (c) In reckless disregard for the rights of a beneficiaries under a life insurance contract; (8) The damages recoverable pursuant to this section shall include those damages which are a reasonably foreseeable result of a specified violation of this section by the authorized insurer and may include an award or judgment in an amount that exceeds the policy limits. §627.70131 Insurer’s duty to acknowledge communications regarding claims; investigation (1)(a) Upon an insurer’s receiving a communication with respect to a claim, the insurer shall, within 14 calendar days, review and acknowledge receipt of such communication unless payment is made within that period of time or unless the failure to acknowledge is caused by factors beyond the control of the insurer which reasonably prevent such acknowledgement. If the acknowledgement is not in writing, a notification indicating acknowledgement shall be made in the insurer’s claim file and dated. A communication made to or by an agent of an insurer with respect to a claim shall constitute communication to or by the insurer. (4) For purposes of this section, the term “insurer” means any residential property insurer. §626.9541(i) Unfair Claim Settlement Practices
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. State Farm Florida Insurance Company (State Farm) has breached this duty in the adjustment of Lori Stewart’s and Joseph Keith Stewart’s (the Stewarts’) claim. State Farm has failed to adopt and implement proper standards for investigation, evaluation and adjustment of claims; has failed to properly train, manage, supervise and promote claims adjusters so that policy holder receives good faith, fair, prompt adjustment of claim, service and indemnity; has failed to conduct a full and fair investigation of the claim and has failed to provide full reasons and facts to the claimant for delay of the claim resulting in statutory violations as set forth in this notice. Furthermore, State Farm has engaged in unfair claim delay; has used business or outcome-oriented investigations and experts to determine the outcome of the claim; has wrongfully denied the claim without fully stating reasons and reserving unwritten reasons; has looked for ways to, delay payment and otherwise “stonewall” the claim; and has used improper claims practices to rush the claims process and profit from wrongful claims practices. The Stewarts’ claim results from hail damage to the dwelling roof and elevations of their home that occurred on April 1, 2024. To mitigate the damages to their home, the Stewarts contacted their insurance company, State Farm, to report the damages. As part of the investigation of the Stewarts’ claim, State Farm assigned a claim number 5966G251X and field claims adjuster William Johnston. State Farm inspected the damages to the Stewarts’ property on April 29, 2024. Subsequently, State Farm provided an estimate of $789.17 to repair the damages, which is insufficient coverage to return the Stewarts’ property back to pre-loss condition. In view of the foregoing, it is clear and unequivocal that State Farm has failed to provide proper and sufficient compensation to repair the damages caused to the Stewarts’ property. Due to State Farm’s handling of the Stewarts’ claim, the Stewarts chose to retain a public adjuster to further assess the damages to their home. As such, upon inspection and view of the damages, it was clear that the dwelling roof, shingles, vents, elevations, gutters, and window screens of the property required extensive repair. After the inspection, the public adjuster provided an estimate for repairs in the amount of $56,355.27, which is the full amount to return Stewarts’ home back to pre-loss condition. State Farm continues to hold their stance for their claim determination concerning the Stewarts’ loss. The Stewarts have complied with all conditions under the policy. Nonetheless, State Farm failed to properly compensate the Stewarts for their loss. The facts of this claim show that for whatever reason, State Farm not only substantially misinterpreted the scope of damages to the Stewarts’ property, but also failed to conduct a thorough investigation as to the scope of damages to the roof and elevations of their home. Upon view of State Farm’s claims handling procedures, it is clear State Farm conducted a limited and quick outcome orientated investigation in the hopes that the Stewarts would make the required repairs with their own money. The Stewarts now must incur costs for assistance to obtain what should have been paid had they been treated fairly and honestly by State Farm. Florida Statute §626.9744(2) provides that “When a loss requires replacement of items and the replaced items do not match in quality color or size, the insurer shall make reasonable repairs or replacement of items in adjoining areas”. In the instance of State Farm, their adjusters and the estimate provided, it is clear that State Farm did not adhere to Florida law, as their estimate provides paltry repair items that would result in mismatching areas which fails to acknowledge the true extent of damage of the Stewarts’ home as well as the surrounding areas that would need to be replaced. Florida Statute §624.02, defines “insurance” as a contract where one undertakes to indemnify another or pay or allow specified amounts, or a determinable benefit, upon determinable contingencies – inherent is the fact that payment must be made timely and promptly. The fact that payment must be made timely and promptly so that the insureds may mitigate their damages, and to put the insureds back into the position they enjoyed prior to the loss as quickly as possible. State Farm has breached this duty by improperly investigating the Stewarts’ claim and failing to properly pay the Stewarts for their loss. State Farm has refused and/or failed to tender insurance proceeds as required by the policy and/or Florida law. It has refused and/or failed to settle the claim when under all the circumstances it could have and should have done so if it had acted fairly and honestly towards the Stewarts. In view of the facts surrounding the Stewarts’ claim, it is evident that State Farm has failed to create and implement adequate guidelines for proper investigations to evaluate claims handling for training and supervision of employees in violation of Fla. Stat. §624.155 and §626.9541 statutory regulations, as well as the applicable provisions in the Florida Administrative Code resulting in the statute violations set forth herein. As stated, State Farm has failed and/or refused to investigate the insureds’ claim thoroughly, accurately, and completely for damages. Furthermore, State Farm has failed to adopt and implement proper standards for investigation, evaluation, and adjustment of claims; has failed to properly train, manage, supervise, and promote claims adjusters so that policy holder receives good faith, fair, prompt adjustment of claim, service, and indemnity, has failed to conduct a full and fair investigation of the claim. Florida Statutes Violated by State Farm are as applied to the facts in this matter is as follows: § 626.951 engaging in acts defined as “unfair trade practices” relating to the business of insurance in accordance with the intent of congress as expressed in the act of congress of March 9, 1945 (pub. L. No. 15, 79th congress), by defining, or providing for the determination of, all such practices in this state which constitute unfair methods of competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices and by prohibiting the trade practices so defined or determined. § 624.155(1)(b)(1) to tender all insurance proceeds monies due and owing the insured or assist the insured in the mitigation of their damages. The insurer breached these statutory duties. Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all circumstance, insurer could have and should have done so, had the insurer acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard. § 624.155(1)(b)(3) failing to promptly settle claims, when the obligation to settle the claim has become reasonably clear under one portion of the insurance policy coverage, in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage. § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)a Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigations of claims. § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)c Failing to acknowledge and to act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. Their actions are willful, wanton and in disregard of the rights of its insured and occur with such a frequency as to indicate a general business practice. State Farm can cure this default by the following: A. Create, adopt, and implement adequate standards and/or guidelines for the proper investigation and adjustment of claims. B. Provide sufficient training and supervision of employees and agents to avoid further violations as set forth in the paragraphs above from occurring in the future. C. Tender payment to the Stewarts in the amount of $56,355.27, which is the amount to return the Stewarts’ home back to pre-loss condition. D. Tender prejudgment interest from the date the claim was reported through today. E. Agree to pay the Stewarts’ reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to Florida Statute §627.428 and all taxable costs
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
dwall@kpsds.com 12-11-2024 VIA E-Mail Only Christopher B. Fauntleroy, Esquire Fauntleroy & Satmary, P.A. 100 S Ashley Dr Ste 600 Tampa, FL 33602-5300 cfauntleroy@fsatlaw.com Re: Insureds: Lori Stewart & Joseph Stewart Claim No.: 59-66G2-51X DFS Filing No.: 787459 Dear Mr. Fauntleroy: As you know, we represent State Farm Florida Insurance Company (“State Farm”) regarding the above-referenced matter. We are in receipt of the Civil Remedy Notice (“CRN”) you filed on behalf of your clients, Lori Stewart & Joseph Stewart (the “Insureds”), against State Farm on October 18, 2024, with a DFS Filing Number 787459. Please allow this correspondence to serve as State Farm’s response to the CRN. The stated reasons for the CRN are listed as: claim denial; claim delay; unsatisfactory settlement offer; and unfair trade practice. The CRN claims State Farm violated Florida Statutes: 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)(d); 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f); 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g); and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h). As a preliminary matter, State Farm denies it violated the statutes cited in the CRN. We also note that you provided no new information regarding these allegations since the time of State Farm’s initial response to the CRN and request for information dated October 22, 2024. Specifically, we had requested that you provide us with any facts to support the allegations in the CRN. We indicated that we would be happy to review any details you may have supporting these allegations. However, we have not received any new information to date. As an initial matter, the CRN is deficient and fails to comply with the requirements of Florida law. The purpose of a Civil Remedy Notice is to provide an insurer with a chance to settle the claim and avoid unnecessary litigation. See Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000); see also, The Heritage Corporation of South Florida v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, P.A., 580 F.Supp. 2d 1294 (S.D. Fla. 2008). In furtherance of this purpose, Florida Statute § 624.155(3)(b) requires that a Civil Remedy Notice “state with specificity” the statutory provisions allegedly violated, the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation, the name of any individual involved in the violation, and the specific policy language relevant to the violation. The CRN is deficient as it fails to specifically state any policy language from the Insureds’ policy of insurance that would specifically apply in this claim. Rather than include the specific policy language relevant to the alleged statutory violations cited in the CRN as required by § 624.155(3)(b), Florida Statutes, the CRN merely states policy language regarding payment, settlement, and coverage. The CRN focuses on the section headings as well. Florida courts have held that a Civil Remedy Notice that merely identifies section headings of provisions of the subject policy, rather than identifying the specific policy language at issue, renders the Civil Remedy Notice deficient under § 624.155(3)(b), Florida Statutes. See Junior Julien v. United Property and Casualty Insurance Company, No. 4D19-2763 (Fla. 4th DCA September 23, 2020); 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 CRN is void of any relevant policy language, breach of policy, or details explaining statutory violations. Further, the CRN fails to provide any explanation as to how State Farm failed to comply with the terms of the policy and/or any specific language in the policy pertaining to the alleged incident. Also, the CRN does not provide an explanation as to how State Farm failed to comply with the terms of the policy or any specific policy language therein by referencing the specific language in the policy pertaining to the alleged statutory violations. In addition, the “facts and circumstances” section of the CRN is not in compliance with Florida law. Contrary to the requirements of Florida Statutes, the CRN makes false, boilerplate accusations, and does not contain any specific facts supporting the violations alleged. For example, the CRN fails to provide any factual support for various allegations regarding State Farm’s alleged claim denial; claim delay; unsatisfactory settlement offer; and unfair trade practice, or its alleged violations of those statutory provisions noted above and in the CRN. As more fully discussed below, the allegations contained within the CRN are false, and the CRN contains no facts to support them. Although the CRN alleges that State Farm “failed to provide proper and sufficient compensation to repair the damages caused to the Stewarts’ property”, the following summary demonstrates that State Farm has acted responsibly and in good faith during the investigation and handling of this claim. The failure to provide any factual support for the alleged violations of Florida statutes and administrative law renders the CRN deficient and in violation of Florida Statute § 624.155(3)(b). It appears on April 18, 2024, a hailstorm claim was reported for alleged damage sustained to the roof of the insured property located at 12541 Hammock Pointe Circle, Clermont, Florida 34711 (the “Property”). A date of loss of April 25, 2023 was provided at the time of reporting. While the CRN alleges that the loss occurred on “April 1, 2024”, the date of loss provided by the Insureds as well as their representatives is April 25, 2023. Therefore, the loss was reported three hundred fifty-nine (359) days, or almost twelve (12) months, after it is alleged to have occurred. The Insureds’ contract for insurance requires that the Insureds give “immediate notice” to State Farm of the loss. Specifically, the policy states: SECTION I – CONDITIONS 2. Your Duties After Loss. After a loss to which this insurance may apply, you must cooperate with us in the investigation of the claim and also see that the following duties are performed: a. give immediate notice to us or our agent. . . (Emphasis added.) The Insureds’ reporting of the claim was untimely and prejudicial to State Farm’s inspection and investigation. Due to the Insureds’ delay in reporting the alleged loss to State Farn, State Farm was unable to inspect the Property until April 29, 2024. During the inspection, State Farm observed one hail damaged rain cap for which it extended coverage. Ultimately, State Farm determined that the claim was partially covered and issued its determination for the Insureds’ claim, which fell below the Insureds’ deductible, on or about May 1, 2024. The was no interior or exterior damage reported by the Insureds at this time. The DFS mediation letter was sent on or about May 2, 2024 to the Insureds. Recently, the Insureds have demanded mediation through DFS and the same is being scheudled. Further, to date, the Insureds have not submitted a Sworn Statement in Proof of Loss to Stat Farm, even though they are required to under the policy of insurance with State Farm. This requirement is even cited within the CRN. On or about May 15, 2024, State Farm received a letter of representation from Southern State Claims Adjusters (“Public Adjuster”) and contract, which shows a date of loss of April 25, 2023 for the claim assigned to Claim Number 59-66G2-51X. On May 18, 2024, State Farm sent its estimate, coverage letter, and DFS letter to the Public Adjuster. Stat Farm then sent a copy of the policy to the Public Adjuster on or about May 27, 2024. On June 4, 2024, State Farm received a call from the Public Adjuster requesting a status on the claim. State Farm informed the Public Adjuster that a determination had already been made and it would review any additional photographs they have to determine if a second inspection is warranted. On or about July 15, 2024, State Farm received the Public Adjuster’s estimate. On August 2, 2024, State Farm informed the Public Adjuster that a second inspection is not warranted at this time. On September 16, 2024, State Farm received your office’s letter of representation on behalf of the Insureds. On or about October 22, 2024, State Farm sent a copy of the certified policy of insurance to your office. On November 26, 2024, the undersigned contacted your office to coordinate an inspection of the Property with an engineer retained by State Farm. Said inspection is being coordinated with your office. Throughout the handling of this claim, State Farm fully inspected, evaluated, and communicated the claim with the Insureds or their representatives. Based upon the Insureds’ statements regarding the alleged loss and Property as well as the investigation conducted by State Farm, the claim was partially denied based upon the condition of the Property and the exclusions within the Insureds’ policy of insurance. Based upon our review of the facts of this matter, State Farm has fully and properly attempted to adjust the claim in accordance with the insurance policy and Florida law. State Farm has handled this claim in the appropriate manner and in good faith, doing everything it could reasonably do to timely and properly investigate the Insureds’ claim and pay benefits where owed. The allegation that State Farm “conducted a limited and quick outcome orientated investigation in the hopes that the Stewarts would make the required repairs with their own money” is malicious and false. The CRN alleges that the Insureds “have complied with all conditions under the policy.” However, this statement is completely untrue. Not only did the Insureds not comply by immediately reporting the loss to State Farm (as noted they delayed the reporting of the claim by almost exactly one year), they did not provide State Farm with a Sworn Statement in Proof of loss. Specifically, the CRN alleges violation of: 1. FS 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. State Farm denies violation of section 625.155 (1)(b)(1) because it made a good faith effort to appropriately investigate and evaluate the Insureds’ claim. State Farm has, at all times, acted in accordance with the terms, conditions, and coverages of the insurance policy. State Farm inspected the subject property, reviewed all the documents and information provided and advised of its evaluation and coverage determination in compliance with the policy. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting the Insureds’ allegations have been set forth in the Notice. Thus, this allegation of a statutory violation is denied. The CRN fails to provide facts or information to support this alleged violation. 2. FS 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. State Farm denies violation of section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) because it made a good faith effort to appropriately investigate and evaluate the Insureds’ claim. State Farm has, at all times, acted in accordance with the terms, conditions, and coverages of the insurance policy. State Farm inspected the subject property, reviewed all the documents and information provided and advised of its evaluation and coverage determination in compliance with the policy. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting the Insureds’ allegations have been set forth in the Notice, thus this allegation of a statutory violation is denied. The CRN fails to provide facts or information to support this alleged violation. 3. FS 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b); Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. State Farm denies violation of section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) because it made a good faith effort to appropriately investigate and evaluate the Insureds’ claim. State Farm has, at all times, acted in accordance with the terms, conditions, and coverages of the insurance policy. State Farm inspected the subject property, reviewed all the documents and information provided and advised of its evaluation and coverage determination in compliance with the policy. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting the Insureds’ allegations have been set forth in the Notice, thus this allegation of a statutory violation is denied. The CRN fails to provide facts or information to support this alleged violation. 4. FS 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c); Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. State Farm denies violation of section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) because State Farm has, at all times, acted in accordance with the terms, conditions, and coverages of the insurance policy. State Farm inspected the subject property, reviewed all the documents and information provided and advised of its evaluation and coverage determination in compliance with the policy. State Farm also promptly responded and attempted to contact the Insured or their representatives to discuss the claim. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting the Insureds’ allegations have been set forth in the Notice. Thus, this allegation of a statutory violation is denied. The CRN fails to provide facts or information to support this alleged violation. 5. FS 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d); Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information. State Farm denies violation of section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) because it made a good faith effort to appropriately investigate and evaluate the Insureds’ claim. State Farm has, at all times, acted in accordance with the terms, conditions, and coverages of the insurance policy. State Farm inspected the subject property, reviewed all the documents and information provided and advised of its evaluation and coverage determination in compliance with the policy. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting the Insureds’ allegations have been set forth in the Notice, thus this allegation of a statutory violation is denied. The CRN fails to provide facts or information to support this alleged violation. 6. FS 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f); Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of the basis in the insurance policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement. State Farm denies violation of section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) because it made a good faith effort to appropriately investigate and evaluate the Insureds’ claim. State Farm has, at all times, acted in accordance with the terms, conditions, and coverages of the insurance policy. State Farm inspected the subject property, reviewed all the documents and information provided and advised of its evaluation and coverage determination in compliance with the policy. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting the Insureds’ allegations have been set forth in the Notice, thus this allegation of a statutory violation is denied. The CRN fails to provide facts or information to support this alleged violation. 7. FS 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g); Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim. State Farm denies violation of section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g) because it made a good faith effort to appropriately investigate and evaluate the Insureds’ claim. State Farm has, at all times, acted in accordance with the terms, conditions, and coverages of the insurance policy. State Farm inspected the subject property, reviewed all the documents and information provided and advised of its evaluation and coverage determination in compliance with the policy. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting the Insureds’ allegations have been set forth in the Notice, thus this allegation of a statutory violation is denied. The CRN fails to provide facts or information to support this alleged violation. 8. FS 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h); Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary. State Farm denies violation of section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h) because it made a good faith effort to appropriately investigate and evaluate the Insureds’ claim. State Farm has, at all times, acted in accordance with the terms, conditions, and coverages of the insurance policy. State Farm inspected the subject property, reviewed all the documents and information provided and advised of its evaluation and coverage determination in compliance with the policy. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting the Insureds’ allegations have been set forth in the Notice, thus this allegation of a statutory violation is denied. The CRN fails to provide facts or information to support this alleged violation. For the reasons set forth above, State Farm denies the allegations contained in the CRN. However, we would welcome the opportunity to review any additional information you may have that you believe supports your clients’ position. Should you have any documents or other information that State Farm has not had the opportunity to review, please provide those at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, /s/ Danielle M. Wall Danielle M. Wall DMW cc: Client
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