Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     791305
Filing Accepted:  11/11/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
WALKER   First Name   ERIC
Street Address * 19492 NW 11TH ST
City, State Zip * PEMBROKE PINES, FL 33029
Email Address * INSURED@MCDONALDBARNHILL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   WALKER   First Name   ERIC
Policy # * SJ31114269 Claim #* SL24201595
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* GONTRUM First Name * RYAN Initial L
Street Address* 505 S. MAGNOLIA AVENUE
City, State Zip* TAMPA , FL 33606
Email Address * TAL@MCDONALDBARNHILL.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):* CHELSA GRIFFIN AND ANTHONY PAGUANDAS
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
Claim Delay
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Unfair Trade Practice
* Statutory provision(s) which the insurer allegedly violated.
 
624.155(1)(b)(1) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

***ADDITIONAL STATUTORY PROVISIONS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN VIOLATED AS FOLLOWS:*** §624.155(1)(B)(1) Any person may bring a civil action against an insurer when such person is damaged: By the commission of any of the following acts by the insurer: 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 towards its insured and with due regard for his interests; 2. 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. §624.155 (5) No punitive damages shall be awarded under this section unless the acts giving rise to the violation occur with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice and these acts are: (a) Willful, wanton, and malicious; (b) In reckless disregard for the rights of any insured; or (c) In reckless disregard for the rights of a beneficiary under a life insurance contract; (8) The damages recoverable pursuant to this section shall include those damages which are a reasonably foreseeable result of a specified violation of this section by the authorized insurer and may include an award or judgment in an amount that exceeds the policy limits. §626.9541(i) Unfair Claim Settlement Practices 2. Committing or performing with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice any of the following: §626.9541(1)(i)3a Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. ***Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation*** Slide Insurance Company (“Slide”) failed to adequately adjust and pay the claim covered under the subject insurance policy. Specifically, but not limited to, Slide failed to properly apply the Loss Settlement and Loss Payment provisions of the policy. In addition to the policy sections specifically cited herein, any endorsements or changes to said sections are relevant to the Insured’s claim for civil remedy. There may be additional policy language relevant to this violation that may be discovered.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Eric Walker’s claim results from water damage due to a plumbing supply line failure on or about March 12, 2024, to his property located at 19492 NW 11th St., Pembroke Pines, FL 33029. The plumbing failure resulted in water pouring into the kitchen, damaging cabinets, floors, and drywall in multiple rooms of the dwelling. The property was insured under policy number SJ31114269. The claim was reported to Slide Insurance Company (“Slide”) and was assigned the claim number SL24201595. The carrier assigned Chelsa Griffin as the desk adjuster, and Anthony Paguandas as the field adjuster to the claim. Mr. Paguandas performed a perfunctory inspection and prepared an estimate totaling $27,000.58, which not only underscoped the damage, but also classified many necessary repairs under limited matching endorsement coverage. For example, despite the widespread damage to the kitchen cabinets, the estimate included the detaching and resetting of the kitchen appliances as matching repairs. Based on this estimate, Slide issued two checks totaling just $16,625.52 in a failed attempt to indemnify the Insured for his unfortunate loss. Unsurprisingly, the funds issued are insufficient to restore Mr. Walker’s property back to its pre-loss condition. Mr. Walker hired Stellar Public Adjusting Services LLC. (“Stellar”) to represent his interests in the claim. Stellar inspected the property and found $162,867.28 worth of damages to the dwelling. Stellar sent their estimate, photos, and other documentation to Slide and requested supplemental payment. However, slide refused to issue additional payment, or even send another individual to reinspect. Stellar and Mr. Walker also requested appraisal to resolve the claim, but Slide refused to proceed with appraisal either. There is no evidence that Slide considered the documentation provided by Stellar or did anything to further adjust the claim. Slide’s course of action has continuously delayed indemnification while the Insureds’ costs continue to rise. In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. Slide has breached this duty in the adjustment of this loss by refusing to provide proper indemnity, unnecessarily delaying resolution of the claim, and failing to take into consideration documentation provided to them which would support further compensation. Slide has failed to create and implement adequate guidelines for proper investigation of claims handling and for training and supervision of employees and representatives which have resulted in some of the statutory violations set forth above. Slide charged Mr. Walker a substantial premium for these coverages but has refused to tender sufficient payment when under all circumstances it should have done so, had they acted fairly and honestly. As a result, the Insureds have been forced to retain legal counsel to protect their interests. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, Slide must: 1. Immediately tender all insurance monies due to the Insured for the loss; 2. Act fairly and honestly towards the Insured and with due regard for his interests in attempting to settle the claim; 3. Pay statutory interest on the amount of unpaid contractual damages from the date the claim was reported; 4. Cease and desist all present and future bad faith actions with regard to the Insured’s claim; Failure to cure all defects during the 60-day safe harbor period may result in additional extra-contractual damages.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
mnixon@slideinsurance.com 01-01-2025 Via E-mail & Posting on DFS Website Ryan L. Gotrum, Esq. McDonald & Barnhill, P.A. 505 S. Magnolia Avenue Tampa, FL 33606 tal@mcdonaldbarnhill.com Complainant: Eric Walker Insured: Eric Walker Claim No: SL24201595 Policy No: SJ31114269 Date of loss: 03/12/2024 CRN Filing No.: 791305 Dear Mr. Gotrum: 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 Eric Walker (“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 lacking specificity. 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 March 12, 2024, as a claim related to a water loss with a DOL of March 12, 2024. Slide promptly adjusted and evaluated the underlying claim, including, but not limited to, sending Independent Adjuster Anthony A Paguandas to inspect the insured property on March 15, 2024, and by sending Forensic Engineer/Scientist Hector Vizcarra and Senior Building Consultant Scott Cabeza of NV5, Inc., to reinspect the insured property. Based on Slide’s investigation and evaluation of the underlying claim, Slide issued its determination letter(s) and payment(s). 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. REASON FOR THE NOTICE The CRN alleges four (4) reasons for the filing of the Notice. However, no specific facts or circumstances are provided to support these allegations. Notwithstanding, Slide denies the allegation as follows: 1. Claim Denial: This allegation is without basis and therefore denied. Slide acted in accordance with its duties and obligations pursuant to the policy of insurance as well as Florida law. The underlying claim was not denied. Instead, the Insured was issued payment(s) based on the investigation and evaluation of the claim. Accordingly, Slide’s actions are adequately supported by law and fact. Thus, this allegation is without basis and therefore denied. 2. 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 insured property. Slide acted in accordance with its duties and obligations pursuant to the policy of insurance and issued payment to the Insured and responded appropriately to information and documentation that was provided. Thus, Slide asserts that this allegation is without basis and therefore denied. 3. Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer: Slide denies that it extended any unsatisfactory settlement offers to the Insured. Slide promptly investigated the loss and the Insured was issued payment(s) based on Slide’s investigation and evaluation of the claim. Slide asserts that it has acted in good faith towards its Insured at all times. Thus, this allegation is without basis and therefore denied. 4. Unfair Trade Practice: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is wholly denied. The Insured has submitted no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. The handling and administration of this claim occurred with the expediency and timeliness allowed by the statutory requirements imposed upon Slide. At no time did Slide, its agents, or its employees delay the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. The facts show that Slide acted promptly with respect to the investigation of the underlying claim and made communications as necessary to adjust the claim in a prompt and appropriate matter. Information necessary and relevant to the proceeding of the claim, were communicated to the Insured or their representatives in an appropriate manner. Thus, 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 of statutory violation 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(s) based on Slide’s investigation and evaluation of the claim. Moreover, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 2. 624.155(1)(b)(2): Denied. Slide has not failed to make payments not accompanied by a statement setting forth the coverage under which payments are being made. Accordingly, Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it.? Moreover, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 3. 624.155(1)(b)(3): Denied. Slide has not failed to promptly settle the underlying claim. 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 payment was tendered to the insured. Accordingly, Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it.? Moreover, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 4. 624.155(5): Denied. Slide denies that the Insured is entitled to punitive damages. The aforementioned facts demonstrate that Slide followed Florida law and the policy of insurance. Moreover, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 5. 624.155(5)(a): Denied. Slide denies that its acts were willful, wanton, and malicious. The aforementioned facts demonstrate that Slide followed Florida law and the policy of insurance. Moreover, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 6. 624.155(5)(b): Denied. Slide denies that acted in reckless disregard for the rights of the Insured. The aforementioned facts show that Slide followed Florida law and the policy of insurance. Moreover, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 7. 624.155(5)(c): Denied. This allegation is without basis. Moreover, Slide denies that this section is applicable as this claim does not involve the rights of a beneficiary under a life insurance contract. 8. 624.155(8): Denied. 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, a prompt inspection of the insured property and timely communications with the Insured and/or 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. 9. 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, a prompt inspection of the insured property and timely communications with the Insured and/or 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. 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 an 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) 761-1866 or at mnixon@slideinsurance.com. Sincerely, /s/ Michael Nixon Michael Nixon, 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