Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     790266
Filing Accepted:  11/5/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
NORDGREN   First Name   AARON
Street Address * 7332 N SEAGRAPE ROAD
City, State Zip * PUNTA GORDA, FL 33955
Email Address * AARON.NORDGREN@GMAIL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   NORDGREN   First Name   AARON
Policy # * FPH3-000104501 Claim #* 01000082816
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* BOGGS First Name * AMY Initial
Street Address* 4554 CENTRAL AVENUE, SUITE L
City, State Zip* ST. PETERSBURG , FL 33711
Email Address * BOGGS-PLEADINGS@BOGGSLAWGROUP.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   FIRST PROTECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10897
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* N/A
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
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 A. Coverage A – Dwelling 1. We cover: a. The dwelling on the "residence premises" shown in the Declarations, including structures attached to the dwelling; C. Coverage C – Personal Property 1. Covered Property We cover personal property owned or used by an "insured" while it is anywhere in the world. SECTION I – PERILS INSURED AGAINST A. Coverage A – Dwelling And Coverage B – Other Structures 1. We insure against direct physical loss to property described in Coverages A and B. B. Coverage C – Personal Property We insure for direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage C caused by any of the following perils unless the loss is excluded in Section I – Exclusions. 2. Windstorm Or Hail
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Aaron Nordgren (the “Insured”) owns real property located at: 7332 N Seagrape Road, Punta Gorda, Florida 33955 (the “Property”). On or about September 28, 2022, the Property suffered extensive damage from Hurricane Ian. The Property was insured through First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Insurance (“Frontline”) under Policy No. FPH3-000104501 (the “Policy”) at the time of the loss. The Insured had ample coverage under the Policy to cover the loss. The Insured made a claim with Frontline, who assigned claim No. 01000082816 and investigated the loss. Frontline accepted coverage for the loss but has failed and refused to pay the full amount due for the Insured’s covered loss. The Insured has made an extraordinary effort in this case to comply with Frontline’s requests related to the handling of this claim. After the loss was reported, the Insured sat for a recorded statement, provided an updated Proof of Loss form, allowed Frontline to re-inspect the Property, and complied with all of Frontline’s information requests to the best of his ability. Despite the Insured’s continued compliance with Frontline’s procedures, Frontline has failed and refused to provide the Insured with the benefits that he is owed under the policy. To date Frontline has tendered a total of $12,415.18 for the Insured’s covered loss. The Insured’s damage is estimated by licensed contractor Dennis James, of Triad General Contracting, at $84,912.59 ACV/ $89,464.04 RCV. In addition to Triad’s estimate, the Insured’s personal property suffered $14,836.24 in damages. Frontline has refused to pay the full amount due for the loss. Despite Frontline’s failure to pay the full amount due, significant repairs at the Property have been completed. The Insured’s damages are calculated as follows: $84,912.59 ACV in Cov A damage, less the deductible of $5,300.00, less prior Coverage A payments of $12,162.31, equals $67,450.28 ACV due under Cov A, plus $14,836.24 due under Cov C. The total outstanding amount due at this time is $82,286.52 ACV ($67,450.28 + $14,836.24). The $82,286.52 disparity between the Insured’s damages and Frontline’s payment to the Insured constitutes a bad faith effort by Frontline to avoid full payment for the Insured’s covered loss. Frontline hopes that the Insured will settle his claim for far less than the full benefits he is owed under the Policy. In sum, Frontline has wrongfully underpaid the Insured’s claim and has refused to tender the full benefits that the Insured is due for this covered loss under the Policy. In failing to make payment of benefits due, Frontline has also failed to investigate and settle the claim in good faith, attempted to settle the claim for far less than it is worth without conducting a proper investigation, and misrepresented pertinent facts pertaining to the Policy coverage. On information and belief, Frontline has engaged in the following behaviors with such frequency that the conduct is a pattern and practice of Frontline: delay, improper adjustment of claims, under-valuation of claims, and failure to communicate with insureds. Frontline and the Insured were parties to a valid and binding contract of insurance. This contract of insurance requires Frontline to provide benefits to the Insured in the case of a covered loss to the Property. The Insured suffered a covered loss under the Policy and has otherwise suffered damage that is not excluded under the Policy. All conditions precedent to obtaining coverage for the loss have been complied with, met, or waived. Frontline has failed and refused to pay the full benefits due for the covered loss. The Insured has been damaged by Frontline’s breach of contract. This notice is given to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by Florida Statute, including all bad faith/extra-contractual and punitive damages, should Frontline fail to cure the violations set forth in this notice within the given cure period. To cure the defects outlined in this civil remedy notice Frontline must: (1) Provide full payment of benefits for the Insured’s claim; and (2) Tender interest for benefits due at the statutory rate dating back to reporting of the loss per Fla. Stat. §627.70131.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
Boggs-pleadings@amyboggslaw.com 04-01-2025 This Civil Remedy Notice is hereby withdrawn. The parties in this matter have reached a settlement agreement.
jsuarez@chartwelllaw.com 12-30-2024 December 30, 2024 Amy Boggs, Esq. Boggs Law Group VIA E-MAIL TO: boggs-pleadings@boggslawgroup.com and Florida Department Of Financial Services Consumer Assistance/Civil Remedy Section Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0322 VIA E-FILING: Dept. of Fianancial Services Civil Remedy Notice Website RE: Aaron Nordgren / First Protective Insurance Company Date of Loss: September 28, 2022 Claim No.: 01000082816 CRN Filing No.: 790266 Policy No.: FPH3-000104501 Address: 7332 N. Seagrape Road, Punta Gorda, FL 33955 Our File No.: 890.0113199 To Whom It May Concern: This office has been retained by First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Insurance (hereinafter “Frontline”) in connection with the above referenced claim. Please accept the following as Frontline’s Response to the Civil Remedy Notice (“CRN” or “Notice”) filed on November 5, 2024, by or on behalf of Aaron Nordgren (“Insured”). Frontline specifically denies each and every allegation contained in the Notice and asserts that the Notice fails to comply with the specificity requirements mandated by Florida Statute § 624.155. A civil remedy notice must set forth specific statutory provisions the insurer allegedly violated, the facts giving rise to the violation, the relevant policy language, and a statement that the notice is given to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by the statute. See Landers v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 234 So. 3d 856, 858 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). Similarly, a civil remedy notice must state the facts and circumstances that give rise to an alleged violation with such specificity sufficient to allow an insurer to cure any alleged violation within the 60-day statutory period. See Lane v. Westfield Insurance Company, 862 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). It is Frontline’s position that the CRN filed by the Insured is deficient pursuant to section 624.155(3)(b), Fla. Stat., which states: The [civil remedy] 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: 1. The statutory provision, including the specific language of the statute, which the authorized insurer allegedly violated. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation. 3. The name of any individual involved in the violation. 4. 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. 5. A statement that the notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section. (emphasis added.) Frontline objects to the filing of the Notice because the Insured failed to comply with section 624.155(3)(b)(2), Fla. Stat., which requires that the Notice include the facts and circumstances giving rise to each violation. While the Notice contains some statements apparently relating to the loss, there are no facts alleged that support or provide notice to the carrier of the specific violations complained of. Many of the alleged violations appear to be a boilerplate recitation of the statute and general conclusory allegations that do not contain any factual support. For example, the Notice alleges that the Insured complied with Frontline’s investigation of the loss, but fails to acknowledge that prior to Frontline’s inspections of the property, the Insured had already performed repairs to the property and therefore prevented Frontline from inspecting the conditions of said damage. Additionally, the Insured also failed to provide a timely sworn proof of loss, which was originally requested by Frontline on October 10, 2022 and was required to be returned within 60 days of said request. However, the Insured did not submit his sworn proof of loss until August 27, 2024, which is well past the 60-day deadline. The Notice also fails to address the fact that Frontline issued undisputed payments to the Insured, and that along with said payments, Frontline had requested information and documentation to support potential additional payments. However, not all of those requests were complied with. As such, the Notice is vague and insufficient to put Frontline on notice as to what it allegedly did wrong and fails to address the facts of the claim. Instead, the Notice is full of conclusory allegations that are devoid of any factual support, which evidences the generic nature of the Insured’s Notice and how it fails to provide specificity as to the facts and circumstances of the subject claim. Failure to provide such specificity is direct and clear noncompliance with the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 624.155 and renders the Notice deficient on its face as to form and substance. Indeed, the lack of factual specificity leaves uncertainty as to how to cure the alleged bad-faith conduct. See Valenti v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., No. 8:04-cv-1615-T-30TGW, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36880, at *7 (M.D. Fla. June 6, 2006) (The purpose of the civil remedy notice is to provide insurers one last opportunity to settle a claim with the insured to avoid unnecessary litigation). Frontline also objects to the filing of the Notice as the Insured failed to comply with section Fla. Stat. §624.155(3)(b)(3), as the Insured failed to list “[t]he name of any individual involved in the violation.” No information is provided by the Insured as to the specific identity of any persons alleged to have caused or contributed to the violations. Instead, the Insured states “N/A,” which entirely fails to identify any person representing the insurer. Clearly, the Insured has failed to list anyone allegedly involved in the violation on the insurer’s behalf. This information is readily available to the Insured and/or his representatives, but they have failed to include it in the Notice in violation of Fla. Stat. §624.155(3)(b)(3). The Insured also failed to comply with section Fla. Stat. §624.155(3)(b)(4), which requires references to specific policy language. Notably, the Notice does not list any specific policy provisions. Instead, the Notice broadly lists the preambles for general sections of the policy, which is overbroad and fails to provide any specificity as to what specific policy language the Insured is relying upon. Therefore, the Insured’s failure to list any policy language relevant to the alleged violations fails to comply with Fla. Stat. §624.155(3)(b)(4). See Julien v. United Prop. & Cas, Ins. Co., 2020 Fla. App, LEXIS 13520 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (citing fox v. Starr Indemn. & Liab. Co., No, 8:16-CV-3254-T-23MAP-2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65123, 2017 WL 1541294, at *2 (M.D. Fla, April 28, 2017)) (an insurer’s listing of whole sections of the insurance policy in a civil remedy notice “appear[ed] to lack specificity”). As such, Frontline was not provided with notice of the specific policy language that it allegedly failed to comply with. The Notice does not provide the contemplated and mandated notice of alleged bad faith that is required as a condition precedent to any civil claim for bad faith pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 624.155. Additionally, as described in detail above, the facts alleged in the Notice are overbroad and conclusory and do not contain any specific factual support for the alleged violations. Frontline, therefore, is unable to ascertain the reasons for the alleged statutory violations from the Notice rendering the Notice deficient. For these reasons, the Notice should be denied and rejected. With regard to the facts of the claim, subject loss was reported on October 10, 2022 with a September 28, 2022 date of loss. In order to adjust and investigate the claim, Frontline requested documentation and information, including a sworn proof of loss and documentation supporting the Insured’s claim for damages. Frontline also had the property inspected by independent adjusters and an engineer. The inspections performed on behalf of Frontline revealed repairs had been performed by the Insured following the loss, but prior to Frontline being able to inspect the same. Based on its investigation and the documentation provided, Frontline issued several undisputed payments to the Insured for the covered damages, and also outlined parts of the claim that were not covered. Also, within the coverage letters issued to the Insured, Frontline included requests for additional information to address potential additional payments to the Insured. However, the Insured failed to provide Frontline with all the requested information and documentation. The Insured also failed to provide Frontline with a timely sworn proof of loss within 60 days of Frontline’s request, which was made on October 10, 2022. Despite Frontline’s multiple requests for additional documentation and information in order to attempt to finalize the claim, the Insured prematurely filed this Notice. Accordingly, Frontline has adjusted the loss and damages claimed by the Insured to the extent possible despite the Insured’s continuous non-compliance with Frontline’s requests, the terms of the policy, and applicable Florida Statutes. The Insured alleges various reasons why this Notice was filed and also alleges multiple statutory violations; however, no specific facts or circumstances are provided to support these allegations. As previously stated, the Notice is simply a recitation of general, stock, and unsupported allegations of bad faith conduct which are not specifically alleged or described. Frontline specifically denies that it has violated any of these sections and denies all other allegations of bad faith or improper claims handling in this matter. However, notwithstanding these allegations, the Insured fails to provide factual support for these alleged violations within the body of the Notice. Nonetheless, Frontline denies the following allegations made by the Insured in the Notice: Claim Delay: Frontline denies any delay on its part in the claim handling and processing of the loss, as is evident from the facts outlined above. Frontline promptly acknowledged the Insured’s claim and timely initiated its investigation of the loss. Frontline’s investigation of the claim revealed there was partial coverage pursuant to the terms and conditions of the policy. Frontline then immediately sent coverage determination letters to the Insured. At all times throughout the handling and adjustment of this claim, Frontline acted in accordance with its duties and obligations pursuant to the policy of insurance and acted as promptly as possible under the circumstances to advise the Insured of the determination as to coverage for the alleged loss. Furthermore, as noted above, the Insured’s own failure to comply with policy conditions also affected the timeline of the adjustment of the claim. Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer: Frontline denies any allegation pertaining to any unsatisfactory settlement offer with regard to the subject claim. The Insured failed to submit any facts or circumstances in support of this alleged violation. As demonstrated in the factual summary set forth above, Frontline made a proper coverage determination in this matter and has requested the Insured to provide additional documentation and information to address potential supplemental payments. The Insured’s assertions to the contrary lack support. Unfair Trade Practice: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. The Insured submitted no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. At no time did Frontline, its agents, or its employees employ any unfair business practice during the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. Fla. Stat. §624.155(1)(b)(1): Denied. Frontline has not failed to attempt to settle this claim in good faith and has always acted fairly and honestly towards the Insured. As shown in the factual summary above, the conduct of Frontline following its receipt of the first notice of the loss has been compliant with all aspects of Florida law. Frontline promptly investigated the claim, made coverage determinations based on the applicable policy language and Florida law, and promptly advised the Insured of the determinations. Frontline asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligations set forth in the subject insurance policy. In fact, Frontline has continued to adjust the claim. Fla. Stat. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Denied. This allegation is without basis. Frontline has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of claims at all times. The aforementioned facts demonstrate that Frontline employed proper and customary claims practices in the investigation and adjustment of this claim, and in strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Furthermore, the Insured submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. Fla. Stat. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b): Denied. Again, there is no showing by the Insured to support this baseless allegation of misrepresentation of pertinent facts or policy provisions relating to the coverages at issue. Frontline has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of claims at all times. The aforementioned facts demonstrate that Frontline employed proper practices in the investigation and adjustment of this claim, and in strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. As shown above, Frontline was completely forthcoming with the Insured at all times material hereto. Frontline asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligations set forth in the subject insurance policy. The Insured does not submit any facts or circumstances in support of this alleged violation. Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c): There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. There is no showing by the Insured to support this baseless allegation of failing to acknowledge or act properly upon communications with respect to the claim. As shown in the detailed factual summary above, Frontline was forthcoming with the Insured at all times material hereto and acted as promptly as possible under the circumstances to advise the Insured of its coverage decisions. The Insured does not submit any facts or circumstances in support of this alleged violation. Moreover, Frontline asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligations set forth in the subject insurance policy. Frontline has acted reasonably in adjusting the loss based on the information available to it and in accordance with the terms of the subject policy. Frontline conducted, and is still conducting, a reasonable and diligent investigation to assess the damages in this loss in spite of the Insured’s failure to comply with his post-loss duties, and promptly communicated with the Insured throughout the investigation—all within the mandates of Florida law. Throughout the handling of the Insured’s insurance claim, Frontline has acted in good faith towards the interests of its Insured. Frontline investigated the loss in accordance with the policy provisions and standard claims handling practices. Frontline, therefore, denies any allegations to the contrary. In further response to the Notice, Frontline denies the allegations therein and denies that it has violated any Florida Statute, rule, law, or other authority in its handling of the Insured’s claim. We trust that the foregoing is sufficient to advise of Frontline’s position with regard to the Civil Remedy Notice filed by the Insured. If any additional information is required, please feel free to contact the undersigned regarding same. Very truly yours, CHARTWELL LAW By: Joseph A. Suarez
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