Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     788671
Filing Accepted:  10/24/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
WARNOCK   First Name   JONATHAN BURNHAM AND CATHERINE
Street Address * 175 GREENBRIAR LANE
City, State Zip * SANTA ROSA BEACH, FL 32459
Email Address * CWARNOCK52@GMAIL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   WARNOCK   First Name   JONATHAN BURNHAM AND CATHERINE
Policy # * P016449872 Claim #* 255925
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* ROSS First Name * VANESSA Initial
Street Address* 1800 2ND STREET, SUITE 892
City, State Zip* SARASOTA , FLORIDA 34236
Email Address * ESERVICE@ROSSLEGALFL.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 (#W731418), AND ALL OTHER ADJUSTERS, SUPERVISORS, MANAGEMENT AND INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH OR RETAINED BY SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY INVOLVED IN THE CLAIM.
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Claim Denial
Claim Delay
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.
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)(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.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Dwelling Coverage provisions We cover: 1. The dwelling on the "residence premises" used mainly as your private residence, including attached structures and attached wall-to-wall carpeting if damage to the dwelling is caused by a covered loss; and 2. Materials and supplies located on or next to the "residence premises" used to construct, alter or repair the dwelling or other structures on the "residence premises." Perils Insured Against 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. We do not insure, however, for loss: 1. Involving collapse, including any of the following conditions of property or any part of the property, whether above or below the ground: a. An abrupt falling down or caving in; b. Loss of structural integrity, including separation of parts of the property or property in danger of falling down or caving in; or c. Any spalling, crumbling, settling, cracking, shifting, bulging, racking, sagging, bowing, bending, leaning, shrinkage or expansion, or any other age or maintenance related issues, as such condition relates to a. or b. above. except as provided in 8. Collapse under Section I – Additional Coverages; 2. Caused by: a. Freezing of a plumbing, heating, air conditioning or automatic fire protective sprinkler system or of a household appliance, or by discharge, leakage or overflow from within the system or appliance caused by freezing. (1) Maintain heat in the building; or (2) Shut off the water supply and drain the system and appliances of water; b. Freezing, thawing, pressure or weight of water or ice, whether driven by wind or not, to a: (1) Fence, pavement, patio or swimming pool; (2) Foundation, retaining wall, or bulkhead; or (3) Pier, wharf or dock; c. Theft in or to a dwelling under construction, or of materials and supplies for use in the construction until the dwelling is finished and occupied; d. Vandalism and malicious mischief, if the dwelling has been “vacant” or “unoccupied” for more than 30 days immediately before the loss. A dwelling being constructed is not considered “vacant” or “unoccupied”; e. Accidental discharge or overflow of water or steam, unless loss to property covered under Coverage A or B results from an accidental discharge or overflow of water or steam from within a plumbing, heating, air conditioning or automatic fire protective sprinkler system or household appliance on the “residence premises”. This exclusion applies only while the dwelling is “vacant”, “unoccupied” or being constructed, unless you have used reasonable care to: Loss to property covered under Coverage A or B that results from an accidental discharge or overflow of water or steam from within a plumbing, heating, air conditioning or automatic fire protective sprinkler system or household appliance on the "residence premises" includes the cost to tear out and repair only that part or portion of a building or other structure covered under Coverage A or B, on the "residence premises", necessary to access the system or appliance. (1) The cost that we will pay for the tear out and repair of the part or portion of the building or other structure covered under Coverage A or B as specified above is limited to only that part or portion of the covered building or other structure which is necessary to provide access to the part or portion of the system or appliance that caused the covered loss, whether the system or appliance, or any part or portion of the system or appliance, is repairable or not. (2) In no event will we pay for the repair or replacement of the system or appliance that caused the covered loss. For purposes of this provision, a plumbing system or household appliance does not include: (1) A sump, sump pump, irrigation system, or related equipment; or (2) A roof drain, gutter, down spout, or similar fixtures or equipment. 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 paid upon the earliest of the following: a. 20 days after we receive your written proof of loss and reach a written executed agreement of settlement with you according to the terms of the written agreement; or b. 60 days after we receive your written proof of loss and: (1) There is an entry of a final judgment or, in the case of an appeal from such judgment, within SFI FL HO3 03 20 Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc., with its permission. Page 20 of 31 c. Within 90 days after we receive written notice of an initial claim, “reopened claim” or “supplemental claim” from you, we will pay or deny such claim or a portion of the claim unless the failure to pay such claim or portion of claim is caused by factors beyond our control which reasonably prevent such payment. 60 days from and after the affirmance of the same by the appellate court; or (2) There is a written executed mediation settlement agreement with you according to the terms of the written mediation settlement; or Loss Settlement Covered property losses are settled as follows: a. Property of the following types: (1) Personal property; (2) Awnings, carpeting, household appliances, outdoor antennas and outdoor equipment, whether or not attached to buildings; and (3) Structures that are not buildings; at actual cash value at the time of loss but not more than the amount required to repair or replace
 
* 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. Security First Insurance Company (“INSURER”) has breached the public’s trust by its adjustment of Catherine Warnock and Jonathan Burnham (“INSURED”) claim of loss. Security First Insurance Company’s mailing address is 1001 Broadway Avenue, Ormond Beach, FL 32174. INSURER has failed to create and implement adequate guidelines for the proper investigation and evaluation of claims, claims handling, and for training and supervision of employees resulting in statutory violations as set forth above. INSURER has failed and/or refused to thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigate and evaluate the INSURED’S insurance claim for damages. INSURER has failed to promptly settle the INSURED’S insurance claim when the obligation to settle the insurance claim had become reasonably clear. To date, notwithstanding the INSURED’S pleas otherwise, INSURER has continued to refuse to acknowledge its obligation to conduct a proper investigation, and to tender the full amount of insurance monies due and owing its INSURED under the policy. This claim involves the INSUREDS’ property located at 175 Greenbriar Lane, Santa Rosa Beach, FL 32459 which sustained significant damage from water on or about June 30, 2024. The INSUREDS immediately reported the loss to INSURER and allowed for inspection. The INSUREDS suffered damage to the interior of the property. INSURER inspected the property and denied coverage for the claim.. The INSUREDS retained Noble Public Adjusting. to assist with determining the amount of damage sustained to the property. Noble prepared an estimate in the amount of $87,149.00. The INSUREDS also incurred $9,523.68 of additional living expenses to vacate the property due to the presence of mold until the same could be remediated. The total damage is $96,672.68. The INSUREDS are owed insurance benefits in order to return the property to pre-loss condition. Therefore, demand is hereby made as follows: Estimate $96,672.68 Less Prior Payments $0 Less Deductible $2,500.00 TOTAL $94,172.68 The concept of insurance is that the insurer will investigate and grant timely and prompt indemnity or security against a contingent loss. 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 upon determinable contingencies. Inherent in that definition is the fact that payment must be made timely and promptly so that the INSURED may mitigate their damages and be put back into the position they were in prior to the loss as quickly as possible. INSURER has breached this duty. The INSURED was, and still is, forced to expend out of pocket monies to submit her insurance claim, e.g., retaining an attorney and other experts to force INSURER to honor its obligations under the insurance policy and to pay all the insurance proceeds due and owing to them. INSURER has refused and/or failed to tender all the insurance proceeds due and owing to the INSURED. INSURER’s refusal and/or failure to settle the insurance claim when under all circumstances it could have and should have done so had it acted fairly and honestly towards the INSURED is wrongful conduct. Furthermore, the INSURED contends that INSURER’s adjusters and/or representatives financially benefit from such wrongful conduct. This notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by Fla. Stat. §624.155. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, INSURER must: (1) Create and implement adequate guidelines for the proper investigation and evaluation of claims and for the training and supervision of employees, which will avoid future statutory violations as set forth above, and prevent this from occurring in the future; (2) INSURER must create and implement adequate guidelines for the proper investigation and evaluation of these types of claims and for the training and supervision of employees with regard to these claims to ensure that the claims handling procedure with regard to these types of losses are adequate to prevent other Insureds from being treated unfairly and wrongfully; (3) INSURER must tender to the INSURED $94,172.68 as set forth above; and, (4) INSURER must act fairly and honestly towards its INSURED and with due regard for her interests in attempting to settle its INSURED’S claim. Attachments: Estimate, receipts and proposed complaint
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
eservice@rosslegalfl.com 07-27-2026 The Insureds, Catherine Warnock and Jonathan Seth Burnham, hereby provide notice to the Department of Financial Services and Security First Insurance Company, that the issues outlined in Civil Remedy Notice #788671 have been resolved between the parties and Security First Insurance Company has cured all allegations listed therein. Accordingly, Catherine Warnock and Jonathan Seth Burnham, hereby withdrawals Civil Remedy Notice #788671 filed on OCTOBER 24, 2024.
molly.whittington@securityfirstflorida.com 10-31-2024 10/31/2024 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: VANESSA ROSS 1800 2ND STREET, SUITE 892 SARASOTA, FL 34236 ESERVICE@ROSSLEGALFL.COM Re: CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE OF INSURER VIOLATION Filing No.: 788671 Insured: JONATHAN BURNHAM AND CATHERINE WARNOCK Insurer: Security First Insurance Company Claim No.: 255925 Policy No.: P016449872 Date of Loss: 06/30/2024 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 VANESSA ROSS on behalf of his client, JONATHAN BURNHAM AND CATHERINE WARNOCK (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 10/24/2024 and DFS File No.: 788671 This matter concerns a property damage claim made by the Insured pursuant to a homeowners’ insurance policy provided by Security First Policy No. P016449872 and assigned Claim No. 255925. As the basis for filing the CRN against Security First, JONATHAN BURNHAM AND CATHERINE WARNOCK 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), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d). 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 7, 2024, with a purported date of loss of June 20, 2024. On July 11, 2024, Security First Insurance field adjuster and Hydroscout Leak Detection inspected subject property. On July 25, 2024, H2H Indoor Air Solutions inspected subject property. The inspections revealed the cause of loss as repeated exposure to moisture from the master bathroom tiled shower system, when in use, due to faulty, inadequate, or defective design or workmanship of the tiled shower curb and/or shower pan components. On July 30, 2024, Security First Insurance issued a denial letter. On October 24, 2024, counsel for the Insured filed this CRN. Also, on October 24, 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 was standing by its denial of subject claim. Recap of correspondences from SFI to Insured: Email correspondences: 07/09/2024, 07/18/2024, 07/30/2024, 08/29/2024, 10/08/2024; Outbound calls made to Insured: 07/09/2024, 07/16/2024, 07/18/2024, 07/30/2024, 08/29/2024. 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 JONATHAN BURNHAM AND CATHERINE WARNOCK 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