Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     789638
Filing Accepted:  10/31/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
FORTE   First Name   FRANK
Street Address * 2904 SW 38TH STREET
City, State Zip * CAPE CORAL, FL 33914
Email Address * MAYLE@AVELAWFIRM.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   FORTE   First Name   FRANK
Policy # * SJ30217281 Claim #* SL22212584
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* WALKER First Name * DWIGHT Initial
Street Address* 12585 NEW BRITTANY BLVD
City, State Zip* FORT MYERS , FLORIDA 33907
Email Address * EMAIL@AVELAWFIRM.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   SLIDE INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 17227
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* JULIO JARAMILLO
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
* 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)(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.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

INSUREDS, BASED UPON INFORMATION AND BELIEF, ASSERTS THAT THE FOLLOWING POLICY PROVISIONS ARE APPLICABLE: ALL TERMS, CONDITIONS, SECTIONS AND ENDORSEMENTS OF THE INSURANCE POLICY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO: Coverage A – Dwelling, All Additional Coverage provisions, All Coverage(s) provided by Endorsement or Rider, The Declarations Page, Loss Payment or Settlement Provision, Duties in Event of Loss provision, The insurance policy’s definition section, The insurance policy’s exclusion of coverage provisions, All insurance policy provisions that provide coverage to the insureds' property, All insurance policy provisions requiring the insureds to mitigate damages and to prevent further damage, Appraisal provision, All policy provisions.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

To whom it may concern: Pursuant to Florida Statutes §624.155, and in compliance with Florida Statutes §624.155(3)(b)2 & (3)(b)4, please allow this correspondence to serve as Frank Forte’s (the “Insured” or the “Complainant”) formal notice to pursue a bad faith action against Slide Insurance Company (“SLIDE”), relating to, and stemming from, a multitude of statutory violations associated with SLIDE’S handling of the Insured’s aforementioned insurance claim. In Florida, the profession of adjusting insurance claims involves a special relationship of trust with the public. As such, insurance adjusters and insurance company claim representatives are imposed with a duty of good faith during the settlement process. An insurance policy is obtained by homeowners to protect against unknown disasters, catastrophes, and misfortunes, which may or may not ever occur. The policyholder, after paying premiums and expecting protection against a loss, is in an especially vulnerable economic and personal position when an unexpected loss occurs. The entire purpose of insurance is defeated if those involved with insurance adjustment can refuse or delay the prompt and full payment of monies due under the policy/contract. The facts and/or circumstances presented below affirmatively corroborate the Insured’s contention that SLIDE violated the Florida Statues at issue, which include but are not limited to: improper claim handling, inadequate investigation, improper delay without justification, failing to adequately and promptly communicate, failing to provide reasonable explanations, making misrepresentations, general business practices, unfair or deceptive trade practices, and unsatisfactory settlement offers or practices. By way of brief background, on or about September 28, 2022, the Complainant’s property sustained damage (the “Loss”) as a result of Hurricane Ian. Specifically, the Property’s roof sustained significant damage, multiple flying debris hit the property, the property’s interior sustained damage from wind driven rain, and the property’s exterior elevations sustained significant damage including the property’s pool, pool cage, dock, boat lift, and windows. Further, the Insured had to temporarily leave the home and obtain alternate accommodations, resulting in loss of use of his property. The Complainant reported the Loss to SLIDE, and SLIDE sent Todd Ohlemeier to inspect the subject property on or about October 12, 2022. Mr. Ohlemeier prepared an estimate of damages for $21,626.95 replacement cost value, which included the property’s boat lift cover, the pool cage screens, a minor roof repair, gutter repairs, and a window screen repair. Surprisingly and despite the poor condition of the property’s roof, only a repair was recommended, despite the extent of damage and the unavailability of the tile present on the roof. The carrier issued its coverage determination letter on October 21, 2022 reflecting Mr. Ohlemeier’s estimate and findings. Strangely, despite the Insured’s submissions regarding the expenses incurred following the loss of use of his property, that was never addressed by the carrier in its coverage determination letter nor any communications thereafter, pre-suit. The Insured sought multiple roofing companies to come and inspect the property’s roof damage and provide a repair estimate, including Sabal Construction(“Sabal”). The Insured was advised that the roof was not repairable and would need replacement. The Insured retained a public adjuster to represent him in this ongoing dispute who also provided the carrier with a comparative estimate for the damages not contemplated or properly paid for the instant claim. The carrier then sent Joe Graham, a roofing inspector, to inspect the property and provide a desirable repair quote to substantiate its unwillingness to pay for the roof replacement. The Insured attempted to get an explanation from the carrier regarding the initial decision, but to no avail. Essentially, at this juncture, it appears the carrier is stalling or attempting to continue to stone wall the Insured, who has been attempting to resolve this claim for two years and is eager to move on with their lives and complete the necessary repairs, especially considering the heavy rains and forecasts for the current hurricane season and having already experienced Hurricane Helene and Hurricane Milton. The carrier is required to properly investigate and adjust claims and cannot place that burden upon the insured. This was made clear by the Florida Supreme Court in Allstate Indemnity Co. v. Ruiz, 899 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 2005) (“The Legislature has clearly chosen to impose on the insurance companies a duty to use good faith and fair dealing in processing and litigating the claims of their own insureds…”). The Insured has complied with all requests made by SLIDE and provided all the information available to them with respect to the loss. The Insured has neither received a request for additional information nor an explanation from SLIDE for its delay in settling their claim nor its insistence on blocking the true assessment of damages from its own agents, to include Joe Graham and Todd Ohlemeier. To date, SLIDE has failed and/or refused to provide the Insured with the insurance benefits due and owing, undisputed or otherwise, despite knowing that the property has sustained damage as a result of a covered peril. Despite the Insured’s repeated pleas, SLIDE has not tendered the full amount needed to return the property to its pre-loss condition. SLIDE was bound to conduct itself with the utmost good faith for the benefit of their Insured. However, SLIDE failed to comply with the obligations in connection with this claim. SLIDE has demonstrated an established pattern of retaining individuals who continuously fail to adjust and evaluate the present claim in good faith or who are prevented from doing so by the carrier itself, which is a clear violation of the aforementioned Florida Statutes. Specifically, SLIDE’s refusal to consider the Insured’s consultant’s findings. Thus, at best, SLIDE relied solely on its desk agents’ evaluation of the claim, which happen to support wholly contrary positions to their own field agents. Though liability is clear, and despite multiple demands to resolve this matter, SLIDE has failed to act honestly and fairly towards the Insureds regarding settlement. This not only violates the foregoing cited statutes, but also Fla. §626.9541(1)(i)(2). SLIDE’s handling and adjustment of the Insured’s claim and the conduct of the adjusters, supervisors, management and individuals associated with or retained by SLIDE is evidence that it has failed to create and implement adequate guidelines for proper investigation and claims handling and for training and supervision of employees. SLIDE has failed to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims as required by Florida Statutes §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a). To date, the Insureds have incurred and continue to incur significant damages as a result of SLIDE’s actions. Based on the foregoing violations, it is clear that SLIDE’s actions, including but not limited to: 1) failure to pay the claim in full; 2) failure to promptly investigate the claim; 3) failure to properly investigate the claim; 4) failure to adjust the loss; 5) failure to act in due diligence and good faith to resolve the claim; 6) placing the financial interest of Insurer before that of policy holders and claimants; 7) failure to properly train, evaluate and manage adjusters; and 8) looking for ways to deny coverage, pay less, delay payment and otherwise "low ball" or "stone wall" the claim support the Insured’s position that proper systems are not in place to investigate claims. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, SLIDE must: (1) Create and implement adequate guidelines for proper investigation and evaluation as to claims handling and for the training and supervision of employees, which will avoid future statutory violations as set forth above, and to avoid this from occurring in the future; (2) 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 types of claims to ensure SLIDE’s claim handling procedures with regard to these types of losses are adequate to stop further Insured from being treated unfairly and wrongfully; (3) Assist the Insured in mitigating their damages; (4) Immediately tender all undisputed insurance proceeds to the Insured totaling $333,771.28, less the subject deductible and any prior payment, while continuing to adjust the loss with the Insureds; (5) Immediately tender all insurance benefits due and owing to the Insured under the policy pursuant to the relevant policy provisions provided therein that would reasonably place the Insureds back to their pre-loss condition, to include the estimate of damages amount of $333,771.28, less the applicable deductible and any prior payment, and including, but not limited to all interest due and owing under applicable Florida Statutes. Sincerely, Dwight Walker, Esq.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
cmorrill@slideinsurance.com 12-30-2024 December 30, 2024 Via E-mail & Posting on DFS Website Dwight Walker Ave Law Firm 12585 New Brittany Blvd Fort Myers, FL 33907 mayle@avelawfirm.com email@avelawfirm.com RE: Complainant: Frank Forte Insured: Frank Forte Claim No: SL22212584 Policy No: SJ30217281 Date of loss: 09/27/22 CRN Filing No.: 789638 Dear Mr. Walker: Please allow this correspondence to serve as Slide Insurance Company’s (“Slide”)’s response to the Civil Remedy Notice (“CRN”) that was filed on behalf of Frank Forte (“Insured”). Herein, we include a brief factual history of the underlying claim and actions by Slide which reveals it has acted properly in responding to the underlying claim and in compliance with its contractual and legal obligations. Slide denies each and every allegation brought forth in the CRN and denies any wrongdoing in the handling of the underlying claim. Additionally, Slide denies violating any Florida Statute or Administrative Code as set forth more specifically herein. Moreover, Slide denies violating any provisions or duties set forth in the applicable policy of insurance. Slide further states that the facts and circumstances that are set forth in the CRN, while incomplete and misleading, do not give rise to any violation of any statute or policy provision referenced in the Notice. Furthermore, Slide challenges the validity of the CRN for not identifying the specific policy language they claim Slide failed to follow. See, e.g., Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So.3d 875, 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (affirming dismissal for civil remedy notice’s failure to either strictly, or substantially, comply with statutory specificity requirement); Demase v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company, 351 So.3d 136, 138-39 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022) (holding that the trial court properly determined that a civil remedy notice that failed to state with specificity the relevant policy language was legally insufficient). Finally, the CRN is improper as the Insured failed to establish that Slide breached the policy of insurance, as required by Fla. Stat. § 624.1551. CLAIM FACTS The underlying claim was reported on October 7, 2022, as a claim relating to Hurricane Ian damage. On October 12, 2022, Slide promptly sent Independent Adjuster Todd Ohlemeied to inspect the insured property. As a result of Slide’s investigation and evaluation of the claim, Slide issued its determination letter(s) and payment of approximately $8,854.80. Thus, Slide maintains that it has acted in accordance with the terms of the subject insurance policy, and the law, and has acted in good faith towards the Insured. Slide denies that it violated any statutes or committed the acts asserted in the CRN. Slide neither waives nor is estopped from asserting any and all rights that it may have in law or under the terms of the policy. Slide expressly reserves all such rights without exception or limitation. REASONS FOR THE NOTICE The CRN alleges one (1) reasons for the filing of the Notice. However, no specific facts or circumstances are provided to support these allegations. Notwithstanding, Slide denies each and every allegation individually as follows: 1. Claim Delay: Slide denies any delay in the claims handling process of the underlying loss as is evident from the facts outlined above. Slide promptly acknowledged the claim and timely initiated its investigation of the loss including inspection(s) of the subject property. Slide acted in accordance with its duties and obligations pursuant to the policy of insurance and responded appropriately to information and documentation that was provided. Thus, Slide asserts that this allegation is without basis and therefore denied. ALLEGED STATUTORY VIOLATIONS The CRN alleges multiple statutory violations. However, no specific facts or circumstances are provided to support these allegations. Notwithstanding, Slide denies each and every allegation individually as follows: 1. 624.155(1)(b)(1): Denied. The underlying claim was investigated and adjusted in as thorough and expedient a manner as possible. Following the investigation and evaluation of the underlying claim the Insured was issued payment. Moreover, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 2. 624.155(1)(b)(3): Denied. The underlying claim was investigated and adjusted in as thorough and expedient a manner as possible. Following the investigation and evaluation of the underlying claim the Insured was issued payment. Moreover, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 3. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Denied. This allegation is without basis. Slide has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of claims at all times during the investigation of the subject matter. The aforementioned facts demonstrate that Slide employed proper and customary claims practices in the investigation and adjustment of this claim including, but not limited to, inspection of the insured property and timely communications with the Insured and their representatives. Accordingly, Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Finally, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 4. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b): Denied. This allegation is without basis. Slide has been forthcoming and truthful regarding the pertinent claim facts and/or insurance policy provisions relating to the reported loss. Slide’s correspondences and communications to the Insured and their representatives proves this fact. Accordingly, Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Finally, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 5. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c): Denied. This allegation is without basis. Slide has consistently acted promptly upon all communications with respect to this claim as previously outlined. Slide has adjusted the underlying loss in as thorough and expedient a manner as possible. Moreover, Slide routinely communicated with the Insured and their representatives regarding the underlying claim. Thus, Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Any assertions to the contrary are unsupported by the facts. 6. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d): Denied. This allegation is without basis. Slide has conducted a reasonable investigation of the reported loss as referenced in the factual narrative above. Slide did not deny the underlying claim, but instead issued payment based on its investigation and evaluation of the claim. Thus, there is simply no support for this allegation and Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Finally, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 7. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f): Denied. Slide did not fail to provide an explanation for its payment of the claim. Slide has conducted a reasonable investigation of the reported loss as referenced in the factual narrative above. Slide did not deny the underlying claim, but instead issued payment based on its investigation and evaluation of the claim. Thus, there is simply no support for this allegation and Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Finally, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 8. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g): Denied.? This allegation is without basis.? Slide promptly notified the Insured’s representatives regarding the pertinent claim facts and information needed relating to the claim. Slide’s numerous communications prove this fact.? Accordingly, Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it.? Finally, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE INSURANCE POLICY The CRN fails to allege specific violations of the insurance policy and provides no specific facts or circumstances of wrongdoing. The boilerplate CRN merely sets forth blanket allegations of wrongdoing, without further information. As such, the CRN is defective, as it failed to specifically identify the policy language that is the subject of the alleged violation, and further failed to include sufficient facts to put Slide on notice of the alleged violations. Notwithstanding, Slide denies any and all allegations of policy violations. All actions by Slide were done in compliance with the applicable Policy. As indicated above, Slide thoroughly investigated the reported loss including inspection of the insured property. Thus, it is clear that Slide has acted in compliance with the Policy. Slide asserts that it has at all times complied with the terms of the Policy and has complied with all applicable provisions of the Policy and Florida Statutes in the handling of this matter. STATEMENTS AS TO CURING THE DEFECTS OUTLINED IN THE NOTICE The CRN asserts that Slide must tender all insurance benefits due and owing. Nevertheless, the method for curing violations alleged in a Civil Remedy Notice is not determined by the Insured. Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co., 753 So. 2d So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). Accordingly, Florida Statutes Section 624.155 does not impose on an insurer the obligation to pay whatever the Insured demands. Section 624.155(2)(d) would have no effect or purpose under such an interpretation. Thus, Slide reasserts that it has acted in good faith towards its Insured at all times. Slide references to all the facts herein, which unequivocally demonstrate Slide’s expedient and timely administration of the Insured’s claim. Slide further asserts its full and strict compliance with the Policy and reiterates that it has acted properly in responding to the underlying claim in compliance with its contractual and legal obligations. Slide denies any wrongdoing in the handling of the underlying claim. Additionally, Slide denies violating any Florida Statute, Administrative Code, or code of ethics. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the documented facts of this claim establish that Slide acted diligently in its claims response and adequately performed its obligations under the policy of insurance and Florida law. Thus, the facts contradict all allegations that Slide has in any manner acted improperly or contrary to its contractual obligations to the Insured in this claim. Herein, Slide has attempted to fully and adequately respond to the allegations the Insured allege in the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation filed with the Department. Should there be any questions or further inquiry with respect to this matter, please contact the undersigned at (813) 934-6668 or at grodriguez@slideinsurance.com Sincerely, /s/ Gabriela Rodriguez Gabriela Rodriguez Esq. Staff Counsel
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