Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     787694
Filing Accepted:  10/21/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
PENNINGTON   First Name   SYDNEY
Street Address * 6251 WEST GLORY HILL STREET
City, State Zip * BEVERLY HILLS, FL 34465
Email Address * INTAKE2@THEKRFIRM.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   PENNINGTON   First Name   SYDNEY
Policy # * 79-NS-0098-5 Claim #* 59-69R0-67M
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* KADIR First Name * ALI Initial A.
Street Address* 986 DOUGLAS AVE, STE. 102
City, State Zip* ALTAMONTE SPRINGS , FL 32714
Email Address * INTAKE2@THEKRFIRM.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):* LAURA A. RYAN, CRYSTAL A. SMITH, SHELLY LAIRD, JACK WARD, PETE (LAST NAME OF CRYSTAL SMITH’S MANAGING SUPERVISOR UNKNOWN), MONTE (LAST NAME UNKNOWN), KAREN (LAST NAME UNKNOWN), AND ALL STATE FARM CLAIMS ADJUSTERS, EMPLOYEES, REPRESENTATIVES, AGENTS,
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
Claim Delay
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Unfair Trade Practice
Other : Misrepresentation
* 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.
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.
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)(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.
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.
626.9541(1)(i)(4) Failing to pay undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed under first-party property insurance policies within 60 days after an insurer receives notice of a residential property insurance claim, determines the amounts of partial or full benefits, and agrees to coverage, unless payment of the undisputed benefits is prevented by factors beyond the control of the insurer as defined in s. 627.70131(5).
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

“COVERAGE A – DWELLING We will pay for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage A, unless the loss is excluded or limited in SECTION I – LOSSES NOT INSURED or otherwise excluded or limited in this policy. . . . . COVERAGE B – PERSONAL PROPERTY We will pay for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage B caused by the following perils, unless the loss is excluded or limited in SECTION I – LOSSES NOT INSURED or otherwise excluded or limited in this policy. . . . . 1. Fire or lightning.”
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Sydney Pennington is a homeowner insured with a policy issued by State Farm Florida Insurance Company (“State Farm”). The insured property or home is located at 6251 West Glory Hill Street, Beverly Hills, Florida 34465. In June of 2024, a fire caused extensive damage to Ms. Pennington’s home. Ms. Pennington timely reported an insurance claim for this damage to State Farm and fully cooperated with all requests for inspections. She provided all requested documentation, if any, and complied with all post loss policy conditions. After reporting the claim, State Farm retained an unqualified and biased field adjuster who has a financial relationship with State Farm. This field adjuster inspected Ms. Pennington’s home in an apparent effort to minimize State Farm’s losses instead of adjusting the claim in good faith in due regard for Ms. Pennington’s interests. Despite State Farm finding coverage for her claim, it significantly undervalued Ms. Pennington’s claim at only $67,415.99. Due to such, Ms. Pennington has not been able to permanently repair her home. Indeed, invoices for smoke and fire remediation, textile and electronic cleaning, ALE, storage, appliances, as well as a list of personal property contents and an estimate for repair of all damages were prepared on behalf of Ms. Pennington totaling $230,240.86 and were submitted to State Farm; well above the amount from State Farm. Based on these facts, it is clear State Farm unreasonably denied full coverage for Ms. Pennington’s claim in bad faith through its extremely low and unreasonable undervaluation of her claim. Had State Farm conducted a reasonable investigation based upon the available information, it would have been evident that affording greater coverage and issuing a substantially higher payment is warranted. Instead, it failed to adopt and implement standards for proper claim investigation as well as misrepresented pertinent policy provisions/facts rather than act fairly and/or honestly with Ms. Pennington in due regard for her interests. State Farm also delayed the claim and failed to timely respond to communications. This has become a common business practice of State Farm. Florida Statute § 624.02 defines insurance as a contract whereby one undertakes to indemnify another or pay or allow a specified amount or a determinable benefit based on determinable contingencies. Inherent is the fact that payment must be made timely and promptly so that insureds may mitigate their damages and be put back into the position they were in prior to the loss as quickly as possible. State Farm has breached this duty by refusing to properly and timely adjust the loss. As a result, Ms. Pennington will have no choice but to retain the undersigned counsel to file a lawsuit against State Farm. State Farm has more than enough information and is still refusing to accept coverage for this claim. This continued and repeated reckless claim delay and denial of coverage will result in a significant punitive damage award if a bad faith lawsuit is filed. State Farm can avoid a lawsuit for bad faith by immediately accepting full coverage under the subject insurance policy for this claim and by paying Ms. Pennington based on her $230,240.86 estimates and invoices.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
Intake2@thekrfirm.com 11-06-2025 CRN is withdrawn.
lwhite@rlattorneys.com 12-04-2024 December 4, 2024 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL / RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED TN# Ali A. Kadir, Esq. c/o Sydney Pennington Kuhn Raslavich, P.A. 986 Douglas Ave., Ste 102 Altamonte Springs, FL 32714 RE: Sydney Pennington v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company Claim No.: 59-69R0-67M R & L No.: 31167.0719 DFS Filing No.: 787694 Dear Mr. Kadir and Ms. Pennington: Please allow this correspondence to serve as State Farm Florida Insurance Company’s response to your Civil Remedy Notice filed on October 21, 2024 with filing number 787694. Response to Civil Remedy Notice State Farm Florida Insurance Company (“State Farm”) is subject to a claim being brought by the insured, Sydney Pennington (“Insured” or “Complainant”), whom through her legal counsel, Ali A. Kadir, Esq. filed a Civil Remedy Notice (“CRN”) on October 21, 2024 based upon conclusory and self-serving remarks and not based on the facts and circumstances surrounding the Insured’s claim and the potential resolution of same. The reasons for the notice were given as: claim denial, claim delay, unsatisfactory settlement offer, unfair trade practice, and misrepresentation. In the CRN, the Plaintiff states that the following statutory provisions were violated: F.S. 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. F.S. 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. F.S. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) - Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. F.S. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) – Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverage at issue. F.S. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) - Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. F.S. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) – Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information. F.S. 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 written request of the insured within 30 days after proof-of-loss statements have been completed. F.S. 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. F.S. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g) - Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim. F.S. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h) – Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary. F.S. 626.9541(1)(i)(4) – Failing to pay undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed under first-party property insurance policies within 60 days after an insurer receives notice of a residential property insurance claim, determines the amounts of partial or full benefits, and agrees to coverage, unless payment of the undisputed benefits is prevented by factors beyond the control of the insurer as defined in s. 627.70131(5). State Farm specifically denies the allegations set forth in the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation. At all times, State Farm has acted in good faith towards the Insured. After completing its investigation, State Farm issued correspondence to the Insured regarding coverage and payment, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the policy. The dispute arises because the Insured claims State Farm improperly handled the claim and underpaid it; however, the Insured has been unable to produce any evidence to support her claim. Furthermore, the Insured provided absolutely no factual basis for the alleged statutory violations other than she wanted to be paid the full amount that she demanded be paid. Finally, the allegation that “State Farm has more than enough information and is still refusing to accept coverage for this claim” is just blatantly false. A proper Civil Remedy Notice requires the complainant “to enable the insurer to investigate and resolve your claim, describe the facts and circumstances giving rise to the insurer’s violation as you understand them at this time.” As can be seen, the Civil Remedy Notice fails to provide any specific facts or circumstances giving rise to each specifically alleged violation. Further, the Civil Remedy Notice itself only provides unsupported allegations with no basis in fact or circumstances. Notwithstanding these deficiencies, State Farm denies it committed the alleged acts or violated the statutes cited and asserts this is another reason why the Civil Remedy Notice should be rejected. The loss occurred on June 14, 2024 and was reported by the named insured, Sydney Pennington. The claim details letter was sent out on June 24, 2024. In initial reporting the insured stated that every single room smelled like smoke except for the garage. The Samsung stove had a wood cutting board on it- left by the Insured. While the Insured was asleep, the Insured’s dog jumped up and turned on the stove and the wood cutting board smoldered (but did not burst into flame). This was sometime between 6:00 am and 6:37 am. The fire department was not called. The Insured and her family, including young son and infant daughter, stayed in the home for the next three days. The claim acknowledgment, temporary repairs letter, and Homeowners Bill of Rights letter were emailed to the Insured on June 22, 2024. A fire inspector inspected the subject property on June 27, 2024 at 11:00am. A re-inspection of the subject residence took place with a State Farm representative on August 12, 2024. The Insured and her family tried moving to a camper as temporary housing but State Farm was advised that the camper was not working for them and on October 11, 2024, with the PA’s permission, the desk adjuster assigned vendor assistance in finding temporary housing. On October 14, 2024 the desk adjuster called the PA and advised that she had contacted ALE Housing to offer the Insured and her family alternate housing. Also on October 14, 2024, the differences letter and ALE letter were sent to the PA and the Insured. On October 18, 2024 the Insured was advised that a rental home was approved but not pet boarding. The Insured looked at a property as recommended by the ALE account manager and then declined since the landlord would not allow the insured’s two dogs due to the breed. The public adjuster in this matter is completely and totally financially invested in the outcome and has every incentive to over inflate the estimate to maximize recovery. The public adjuster has contracted to receive ten percent (10%) of any recovery of benefits. However, most importantly, State Farm has accepted coverage and accommodated the Insured regarding housing demands. The Civil Remedy Notice merely cites general statutory language and fails to allege the specific actions or inactions by State Farm which corresponds to each alleged statutory violation. Instead, the Civil Remedy Notice alleges in a general and conclusory nature that State Farm failed and/or refused to fully pay the loss in the amount demanded by the Insured. These allegations are baseless and wholly without merit. Instead, the Civil Remedy Notice is purposefully drafted in a manner which mischaracterizes State Farm’s handling or wholly misconstrues it. Based upon the foregoing, the Civil Remedy Notice is insufficient on its face. See, Talat Enterprises Inc., vs. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000); Lane v. Westfield Ins. Co., 862 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Valenti v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America, 2006 WL 1627276, 2 (MD Fla. June 6, 2006); Longpointe Condominium Ass’n v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2005 WL 1315810 (MD Fla. June 2, 2005); Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2021). Last, the Insured’s perfunctory CRN is insufficient, violates almost every requirement set forth under the Statute and Florida jurisprudence interpreting same, and is therefore defective. Specifically, there are either limited or no facts to support the Insured’s allegations, which are wholly conclusory. As a practical and legal matter, if the Insured honestly believes a violation occurred, the Insured is required to specifically set forth any and all factual information in the notice, including the name of each individual involved, the date of each violation, a description of each violation, and copies of any documentation referencing each violation. While the Insured alleges that the field adjuster has a financial interest, the civil remedy notice fails to acknowledge that the estimate prepared for the Insured was prepared by a party who is contractually and financially invested for ten percent (10%) of the amount recovered. However, because the CRN is devoid of any facts to demonstrate any statutory violation, Claimant has failed to perfect a statutory bad faith claim, and State Farm respectfully requests that the DFS return the notice. State Farm objects to any and all claimed violations contained within the CRN. State Farm continues to reserve all its rights under the policy, at law and in equity. Regardless, the Insured’s bald and conclusory allegations fail to place State Farm on notice of any purported violations. We hope that this response has answered any concerns regarding this matter. If the Department has any question concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned counsel. Very truly yours, /s/ Lauren M. White, Esq. Lauren M. White, Esq. For the Firm
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