Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     788214
Filing Accepted:  10/23/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
AND TRI MINH TRINH   First Name   HANG TRUONG
Street Address * 1816 ZIEGLER ROAD
City, State Zip * ORLANDO, FL 32809
Email Address * INTAKE2@THEKRFIRM.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   AND TRI MINH TRINH   First Name   HANG TRUONG
Policy # * P003043403 Claim #* 242446
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*   SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10117
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* LAURIE ROBERTS HILL, JEFF FOUNTAIN, TAMMY RABB, AND ALL SECURITY FIRST CLAIMS ADJUSTERS, EMPLOYEES, REPRESENTATIVES, AGENTS, VENDORS, AND/OR ENGINEERS WHO HANDLED THE CLAIM.
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)(2) Making claims payments to insureds or beneficiaries not accompanied by a statement setting forth the coverage under which payments are being made.
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.

“We insure against risk of direct loss to property described in Coverages A and B only if that loss is a physical loss to property.”
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Hang Truong and Tri Minh Trinh (“the Insureds”) are homeowner insureds with a policy issued by Security First Insurance Company dba Security First Florida (“Security First”). The insured property or home is located at 1816 Ziegler Road, Orlando, Florida 32809. In September of 2022, Hurricane Ian caused extensive damage to the Insureds’ home. The Insureds timely reported an insurance claim for this damage to Security First and fully cooperated with all requests for inspections. They provided all requested documentation, if any, and complied with all post loss policy conditions. After reporting the claim, Security First retained an unqualified and biased field adjuster who has a financial relationship with Security First. This field adjuster inspected the Insureds’ home in an apparent effort to minimize Security First’s losses instead of adjusting the claim in good faith in due regard for the Insureds’ interests. Despite Security First finding coverage for their claim, it significantly undervalued the Insureds’ claim at only $9,287.81. Due to such, the Insureds have not been able to permanently repair their home. Indeed, an estimate for repair of all damages with respect to their claim was prepared on behalf of the Insureds for $56,878.85 and was submitted to Security First; well above the amount from Security First. Based on these facts, it is clear Security First unreasonably denied full coverage for the Insureds’ claim in bad faith through its extremely low and unreasonable undervaluation of their claim. Had Security First 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 the Insureds in due regard for their interests. Security First also delayed the claim and failed to timely respond to communications. This has become a common business practice of Security First. 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. Security First has breached this duty by refusing to properly and timely adjust the loss. As a result, the Insureds will have no choice but to retain the undersigned counsel to file a lawsuit against Security First. Security First 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. Security First can avoid a lawsuit for bad faith by immediately accepting full coverage under the subject insurance policy for this claim and by paying the Insureds based on their $56,878.85 estimate.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
tammy.Rabb@securityfirstflorida.com 12-05-2024 12/5/2024 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: Ali A. Kadir 986 Douglas Ave, Ste. 102 Altamonte Springs, FL 32714 INTAKE2@THEKRFIRM.COM Re: CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE OF INSURER VIOLATION Filing No.: 788214 Insured: Tri Minh Trinh and Hang Truong Insurer: Security First Insurance Company Claim No.: 242446 Policy No.: P003043403 Date of Loss: 9/28/2022 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 Ali A. Kadir on behalf of her clients, Tri Minh Trinh and Hang Truong (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 10/23/2024 and DFS File No.: 788214. This matter concerns a property damage claim made by the Insured pursuant to a homeowners’ insurance policy provided by Security First Policy No. P003043403 and assigned Claim No. 242446. As the basis for filing the CRN against Security First, Ali A. Kadir asserts in the “Reasons for Notice” section violations such as Claim Denial, Claim Delay, Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer, Unfair Trade Practice, and Misrepresentation, along with the following statutory violations: 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)(2) Making claims payments to insureds or beneficiaries not accompanied by a statement setting forth the coverage under which payments are being made. 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 firstparty 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). 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. Claim No. 242446 was reported for date of loss 9/28/2022 and was reported on 11/2/2022. The Security First Insurance field adjuster, and Dehlinger Construction inspected the insured property. Their inspections found storm-related damage to the roof, fence, and hurricane associated wind driven rain damage to one interior bedroom. Coverage was afforded for the storm related damage to the roof and Security First Insurance attempted to perform the roof replacement as per the coverage determination letter issued 1/16/23 as allowed by the “Our Option” language of the policy. A Demand for Cooperation under the Policy letter was issued 3/16/23 as a response to the insured and their representative’s refusal to cooperate with our efforts to complete repairs to the damaged property. As a means to resolve the refusal to allow for repairs to the insureds roof, an indemnity payment of $9,025.84 was issued with a Partial Denial Letter on 4/12/23. The letter advised the damage to the fence during a hurricane event is an exclusion under the policy. This letter also advised that no coverage was afforded for the supplemental damage reported in March of 2023 after the metal panel awning began leaking, as the inspection performed showed no storm damage occurred to this roof due to this loss. An interest payment of $261.97 was issued on 4/14/23. Ali A. Kadir submitted a Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation with an acceptance date of 10/23/2024. Security First Insurance responded on 11/6/2024 advising mediation has been requested with DFS. 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 Christopher Cabotaje’s rights to pursue civil remedies under Florida Statutes. I. 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. II. 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 questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Tammy Rabb Company Claims Examiner License No. E146651 Security First Insurance Company 1001 Broadway Avenue Ormond Beach, Florida 32714 Tammy.Rabb@securityfirstflorida.com Telephone Number: 386-261-9816
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