Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     788034
Filing Accepted:  10/22/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
O'TOOLE   First Name   JARROD
Street Address * 1338 RENSSELAER AVE
City, State Zip * JACKSONVILLE, FL 32205
Email Address * JRODO2L78@GMAIL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   O'TOOLE   First Name   JARROD
Policy # * P002431315 Claim #* 256323
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* CAMPIONE First Name * FRANK Initial J
Street Address* 501 W. BAY STREET, SUITE 100
City, State Zip* JACKSONVILLE , FL 32202
Email Address * JASON@CAMPIONELAWPA.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10117
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* MOLLY WHITTINGTON AND ALL OTHER CLAIMS HANDLERS OR REPRESENTATIVES RESPONSIBLE FOR HANDLING THE CLAIM
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.
* 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 AND SECTION I – PERILS INSURED AGAINST, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: COVERAGE A – DWELLING. ADDITIONAL COVERAGES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ORDINANCE OR LAW, AND ALL OTHER ADDITIONAL COVERAGES PROVIDED UNDER THE APPLICABLE POLICY. ALL OTHER APPLICABLE COVERAGE PROVISIONS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ALL COVERAGE(S) PROVIDED BY ENDORSEMENT OR RIDER, THE DECLARATIONS PAGE, LOSS PAYMENT OR SETTLEMENT PROVISIONS, AND ALL OTHER PROVISIONS PROVIDING COVERAGE OF THE CLAIM AS PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED TO THE INSURER. FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE SECTIONS VIOLATED 69B-220.201(3) – CODE OF ETHICS. THE WORK OF ADJUSTING INSURANCE CLAIMS ENGAGES THE PUBLIC TRUST. 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: 69B-220.201(3) (B)2. – AN ADJUSTER SHALL ADJUST ALL CLAIMS STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INSURANCE CONTRACT. 69B-220.201(3)(C) – AN ADJUSTER SHALL NOT APPROACH INVESTIGATIONS, ADJUSTMENTS, AND SETTLEMENTS IN A MANNER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INSURED. 69B-220.201(3)(D) – AN ADJUSTER SHALL MAKE TRUTHFUL AND UNBIASED REPORTS OF THE FACTS AFTER MAKING A COMPLETE INVESTIGATION. 69B-220.201(3)(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.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Security First Insurance Company, (“Insurer”) has committed the following in handling the Insured’s claim: 1. Failure to act in due diligence and good faith to resolve claims; 2. Placing financial interest of Insurer before that of the Policyholder and Claimant; 3. Not adjusting the claims promptly and fairly; 4. Not attempting in good faith to handle claims; 5. Looking for ways to deny full recovery to the Insured. On or about September 11th, 2023, Claimant suffered substantial damage to the exterior of the dwelling, due to wind damages, a covered peril under the policy. The policy provides insurance coverage for all the losses, damages, and expenses that Claimant suffered and incurred. The Insurer was provided with an estimate; however, the Insurer still failed to properly evaluate this claim and promptly settle although it has become reasonably clear that it should do so. The Insurer’s improper handling and delay in paying this claim has caused insurmountable damage to the Insured’s home that needs to be remedied immediately. Claimant gave the Insurer prompt and timely notice of Claimant’s claim once damage was discovered. The Insurer has not responded to the claimant’s demand. (1) Estimate for repair as well as other supporting documentation was provided to handling adjuster on August 30, 2023, (2) There are no Invoices for repairs or previous work or maintenance to the roofing to provide, and (3) No EMS documentation in claimant’s possession at this time. The Insurer’s actions amount to but are not limited to the following: 1. Not treating the policyholder with good faith claims conduct 2. Looking for ways to reduce recovery to the Insured 3. Not adjusting claims and evaluating loss properly, promptly, and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to the Insured 4. Not training, supervising, or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made, but rather placing the company’s interests before the policyholder’s interests 5. Placing the financial interest of the Insurer over that of the Insured. Florida law imposes no requirement to specify a definite cure amount to a civil remedy notice. Talet Enterprises v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 753 So. 2d 1278 (2000). To cure the defects outlines in this civil remedy notice, the Insurer needs to pay the full amount necessary to bring the Insured’s home back to its pre-loss condition. The Insurer must also pay for any statutory costs and fees to which the Insured is entitled. This includes, but is not limited to, attorney's fees and costs, IF INCURRED, pursuant to Florida Statute 627.428, plus a 2.5 multiplier in accordance with the principles of Rowe v. Patient's Compensation Fund.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
frank@campionelawpa.com 06-23-2025 Claimant withdraws this notice as the claim has been remedied.
molly.whittington@securityfirstflorida.com 11-22-2024 11/22/2024 Via Electronic Filing: Florida Department of Financial Services Bureau of Consumer Assistance c/o: Civil Remedy Section Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0322 Via Email: FRANK J CAMPIONE 501 W. BAY STREET, SUITE 100 JCAKSONVILLE, FL 32202 JASON@CAMPIONELAWPA.COM Re: CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE OF INSURER VIOLATION Filing No.: 788034 Insured: JARROD O’TOOLE Insurer: Security First Insurance Company Claim No.: 256323 Policy No.: P002431315 Date of Loss: 09/11/2023 Dear Sir or Madam: This correspondence is in response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (hereinafter referred to as the “CRN”) was filed by FRANK CAMPIONE on behalf of his client, JARROD O’TOOLE (hereinafter referred to as “Insured”). Please be advised that the undersigned represents the interests of Security First Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as “Security First”) with respect to the above-referenced matter. The Florida Department of Financial Services (hereinafter referred to as “Department”) assigned this CRN an acceptance date of 10/22/2024 and DFS File No.: 788034 This matter concerns a property damage claim made by the Insured pursuant to a homeowners’ insurance policy provided by Security First Policy No. P002431315 and assigned Claim No. 256323. As the basis for filing the CRN against Security First, JARROD O’TOOLE asserts in the “Reasons for Notice” section violations such as unsatisfactory settlement offer, claim denial, claim delay, and unfair trade practice, along with the following statutory violations: 624.155(1)(b)(1), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c). Security First welcomes this opportunity to respond to the CRN and denies each allegation contained therein. The allegations made in the CRN are premature, as the insured has failed to perfect the claim for bad faith and the CRN does not meet the specificity requirement of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. This CRN does not sufficiently support the allegations stated above. As is standard procedure, upon the first notice of the claim, the subject property was dutifully inspected by an SFIC representative which was documented through photographs. Subject claim was reported on July 31, 2024, with a purported date of loss of September 11, 2023, 324 calendar days after the reported date of loss. On August 8, 2024, Security First Insurance field adjuster and Hydroscout Leak Detection inspected subject property. On August 9, 2024, Elizabeth Evans Custom Homes dba E2 Roofing inspected subject property. The inspections revealed the cause of loss as wind to roof shingles, which allowed rainwater to infiltrate the roof system, causing water damage to the interior of the dwelling. Our investigation further revealed no reasonable mitigation efforts were performed, by the Insured to protect the interior from further damage (i.e., installation of a roofing tarp or some other protective barrier), resulting in more severe water damage, such as wood rot, and deterioration of building materials. The effective policy requires any “insured” to use all reasonable means to save and preserve property at and after the time of a loss. Additionally, the policy includes an exclusion regarding repeated exposure to moisture. These sections of the policy can be located in SECTION I – EXCLUSIONS, 1.e and 1.n. As such, Security First Insurance issued a partial coverage letter on August 20, 2024, denying coverage for the interior water damage. Security First Insurance elected to replace the entire roof system with an in-network roofing company, E2 Roofing. This roof replacement was completed on September 23, 2024. On October 22, 2024, counsel for the Insured filed this CRN. Also, on October 22, 2022, counsel for the Insured filed a Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation. Security First responded to the Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation by sending correspondence advising Security First would like to mediate the dispute. I. Perfecting a Claim for Bad Faith SFIC specifically denies all allegations set forth in the Notice. SFIC contends that the Notice should be rejected and returned by the Department of Financial Services as it is premature. Pursuant to statute, there is no potential violation until a breach of contract is established. § 624.1551, Florida Statutes. Accordingly, any Notice filed prior to a finding that SFIC has breached the terms of the policy, is not ripe and is premature and thus fails to perfect JARROD O’TOOLE rights to pursue civil remedies under Florida Statutes. II. Specificity Requirement The Insured’s CRN violates multiple requirements set forth in the Florida courts’ jurisprudence for Civil Remedy Notices. In addition, it fails to meet even the most basic requirements of the Statute. Pursuant to the terms of the statute, (3)(a) As a condition precedent to bringing an action under this section, the department and the authorized insurer must have been given 60 days’ written notice of the violations. Notice to the authorized insurer must be provided by the department to the e-mail address designated by the insurer under s. 624.422. a. The notice shall be on a form provided by the department and shall state with specificity the following information, and such other information as the department may require (emphasis added): b. (3)(a) As a condition precedent to bringing an action under this section, the department and the authorized insurer must have been given 60 days’ written notice of the violations. Notice to the authorized insurer must be provided by the department to the e-mail address designated by the insurer under s. 624.422. i. The statutory provision, including the specific language of the statute, which the authorized insurer allegedly violated. ii. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation. iii. The name of any individual involved in the violation. iv. Reference to specific policy language that is relevant to the violation, if any. If the person bringing the civil action is a third-party claimant, she or he shall not be required to reference the specific policy language if the authorized insurer has not provided a copy of the policy to the third-party claimant pursuant to written request. v. A statement that the notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section. In interpreting this statute, courts have emphasized the importance of filing specific civil remedy notices. The civil remedy notice is “crucial to the procedural integrity of an action” under the Statute. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Clohessy, 32 F.Supp.2d 1328, 1333 (M.D. Fla. 1998). “It is, without a doubt, a condition that must be satisfied in order for one to perfect the right to sue under the statute.” Id. “In creating this statutory remedy for bad- faith actions, the Legislature provided this sixty-day window as a last opportunity for insurers to comply with their claim-handling obligations when a good-faith decision by the insurer would indicate that contractual benefits are owed.” Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 2000). Thus, the Notice cannot be “vague and ‘shotgun’ in nature,” rather than “the type of specific notice required by the statute that would allow [the insurer] an opportunity to cure.” Heritage Corp. of South Florida v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 580 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1299 (S.D. Fla. 2008). Because it is in derogation of the common law, Section 624.155(1)(b), Florida Statutes must be strictly construed. Talat, 753 So. 2d at 1283 (citing Baxter v. Royal Indem. Co., 285 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). To perfect the right to sue under the statute, the insured must specifically notify the insured of any and all alleged violations claimed. Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 952 F.Supp. 773, 776 (M.D. Fla. 1996) (“Talat I”) See Fox v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., No. 8:16-CV-3254-T-23MAP, 2017 WL 1541294, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2017) (sufficiency means specificity). In Junior Julien v. United Property and Casualty Insurance Company, 311 So.3d 875, 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021), the Honorable Court stated: The Middle District of Florida was confronted with a civil remedy notice that was similarly broad in scope and concluded that listing nearly all policy provisions on the notice did not satisfy the statute. Fox v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., No. 8:16-CV-3254-T-23MAP, 2017 WL 1541294, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2017). The court explained that “[i]f the statute contained no specificity requirement, [then] the [insureds’] casual ‘reference’ to the entire insurance policy undoubtedly would suffice.” Id. But, the court continued, “the Legislature included ‘specific’ or a variant not once but twice in the statute.” Id. As a result, the insureds’ listing of whole sections of the insurance policy “appear[ed] to lack specificity.” Id. In Valenti, the District Court for the Middle District of Florida considered the practical consequences of an insured’s non-specific civil remedy notice. Valenti v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America, 2006 WL 1627276 (M.D. Fla. 2006). The plaintiff’s civil remedy notice included allegations that the defendant conducted an inadequate investigation. The plaintiff, however, failed to identify with the requisite specificity the defendant’s actions that were inadequate. The Middle District held that the plaintiff’s civil remedy notice was insufficient, and stated the following: [T]he civil remedy notice must be specific enough to provide insurers notice of the wrongdoing so the insurer can cure the same within sixty days. … Plaintiffs’ counsel, during the hearing in this matter, argued a civil remedy notice that states “you denied my claim” should be sufficient to place the insurer on notice of what was needed to be cured. Plaintiffs’ counsel further argued that it was up to the insurer, as the insurance expert, to decipher what actions needed to be cured. This argument, in this Court's estimation, is illogical and is counter to the purpose of the civil remedy notice. If a simple “you denied my claim” was sufficient to put insurers on notice, the sixty-day cure period would be little more than a guessing game with the insurer attempting to correctly guess what errors the insured claimed it made in the claims handling process, or risk defending a bad faith action. This surely is not what the legislature had in mind when it created the civil remedy notice. Accordingly, this Court finds that Plaintiffs allegation that Defendant failed to conduct an adequate investigation is insufficient to provide Defendant an opportunity to cure. Id. at *2. The guidance for an insured could not be more clear. “The purpose of the civil remedy notice is to give the insurer one last chance to settle a claim with its insured and avoid unnecessary bad faith litigation.” Lane v. Westfield Insurance Co., 862 So. 2d 774, 779 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Its purpose is not “to give the insured a right of action to proceed against the insurer even after the insured’s claim has been paid or resolved.” Id. Ultimately, conclusory allegations without facts fail to perfect a statutory bad faith claim. Merely alleging the bare minimum allegations is insufficient pursuant to Florida courts’ interpretations of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. III. Conclusion At all times, Security First has acted in good faith in its handling of the claim and it has acted fairly, honestly, and with due regard for the Insured’s interest and in determining obligations to Insured. Specifically, Security First has complied with its obligations under the applicable Florida Statutes and the applicable Security First Insurance policy. Security First specifically denies any claim for bad faith and argues that the insured’s claim for bad faith is premature. Security First continues to reserve all its rights under the policy, at law and in equity. Regardless, Insured’s conclusory allegations fail to place Security First on notice of any purported violations. Furthermore, the Civil Remedy Notice fails to identify how to cure the allegations set forth. The allegations are without basis. It is clear Security First properly handled and adequately investigated the claim. We hope that this response has answered any concerns regarding this matter. If the Department has any question concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, _______________________ Molly Whittington License: #W731418 Security First Insurance Company P.O. Box 105649 Atlanta, GA 30348-5649 Molly.Whittington@SecurityFirstFlorida.com Telephone Number: 386-868-1637
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