Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     791950
Filing Accepted:  11/13/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
HOWELL   First Name   CHRISTINE
Street Address * 500 ESTERO BLVD. UNIT 401
City, State Zip * FORT MYERS BEACH, FL 33931
Email Address * INSURED@MCDONALDBARNHILL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   HOWELL   First Name   CHRISTINE
Policy # * SFLD0360103-08 Claim #* 51861
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*   SAFEPOINT INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 15341
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* ERIC THOMAS AND STEVEN TILLMAN
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)(a)(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. Section 626.9541(1)(i), (o), or (x); §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*** Safepoint Insurance Company (“SafePoint”) failed to adequately adjust and pay the claim covered under the subject insurance policy. Specifically, but not limited to, SafePoint 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.

Christine Howell’s claim results from wind and water damage due to Hurricane Ian on September 28, 2022, to her property located at 500 Estero Blvd. Unit 401, Fort Myers Beach, FL 33931. The severe winds significantly damaged the exterior of the condo. In turn, water intruded throughout the dwelling, causing significant damage and necessitating gutting nearly the entire insured property. The property was insured under policy number SFLD0360103-08. The claim was reported to SafePoint Insurance Company (“SafePoint”) and was assigned claim number 51861. SafePoint assigned Eric Thomas as the desk adjuster, and Steven Tillman as the field adjuster to the claim. Mr. Tillman inspected the property, but did not prepare SafePoint’s estimate. Instead, SafePoint’s estimate was prepared by Toni Laird. Despite the extreme damage to the interior of the property, this estimate totaled only $20,465.95, which failed to include cabinet or vanity repairs, and otherwise under scoped the damage to the property. Based on this estimate, SafePoint issued payment totaling only $18,557.99 under Coverage A in a failed attempt to indemnify the insured for her unfortunate loss. Unsurprisingly, the funds issued are insufficient to restore Ms. Howell’s property back to its pre-loss condition. Ms. Howell hired MAF d.b.a. Ironclaim (“Ironclaim”) to represent her interests in the claim. Ironclaim inspected the property and found $91,488.19 worth of damages to the dwelling, and compiled a contents list totaling $31,431.46. Ironclaim sent their estimate, sworn proof of loss, photos, and other relevant documentation to SafePoint and requested supplemental payment. Meanwhile, SafePoint had reassigned the claim to Jilma Novo. Ms. Novo refused to produce any photographs taken by SafePoint, and demanded the insured sit for a recorded statement before refusing to consider any additional information. SafePoint still has not issued any amount for the significant contents loss suffered by the insured. Unfortunately, there is no evidence SafePoint ever considered the information submitted by Ironclaim or did anything further to adjust the loss. SafePoint’s course of action has continuously delayed indemnification while the Insured’s costs continue to rise. In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. SafePoint 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. SafePoint 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. SafePoint charged Ms. Howell 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 Insured has been forced to consider legal counsel to protect her interests. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, SafePoint 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
mbakas@safepointins.com 01-10-2025 January 10, 2025 VIA EMAIL TAL@MCDONALDBARNHILL.COM Ryan L. Gontrum, Esq. 505 S. Magnolia Avenue Tampa, FL 33606 RE: Insured: Christine Howell Claim Number: 51861 Policy: SFLD0360103-08 Date of Loss: 9/28/2022 CRN Filing Number: 791950 Dear Sir/Madam: Please allow this to serve as SafePoint Insurance Company (“SafePoint”) formal response to the above-referenced Civil Remedy Notice (“Purported Notice”) on behalf of Christine Howell (“Insured” / “Complainant”). The Florida Department of Financial Services accepted the Purported Notice, in form only, on November 13, 2024. The Purported Notice was filed in connection with Insureds’ insurance claim for property damage. The Purported Notice names SafePoint and Claim Denial, Claim Delay, Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer and Unfair Trade Practice, supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a); 624.155(5)(a)(1); 624.155(5); 626.9541(i) Florida Statutes. The Purported Notice is a legal nullity for the reasons discussed below. ^1 ^1 SafePoint reserves all (and waives none) of its rights or defenses, including its right to assert additional deficiencies in the Purported Notice. Under Section 624.155(3), Florida Statutes, a claimant must file a notice with the Florida Department of Financial Services (“the Department”) at least 60 days before filing a Statutory “bad faith” lawsuit. This notice is commonly referred to as a “civil remedy notice” (“CRN”). Section 624.155(3), Florida Statutes sets out five pieces of information which must be included in a CRN: 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; and 5. A statement that the notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section. The statute also provides that, in addition to these five requirements, the CRN shall be “on a form provided by the [Department] and shall state with specificity . . . such other information as the department may require.” (emphasis added); The Florida Supreme Court has held that Section 624.155, Florida Statutes “must be strictly construed.” Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1283 (Fla. 2000). Strict construction is appropriate as “this statute is in derogation of the common law.” Id. When interpreting a statute in derogation of the common law, “[a] court will presume that such a statute was not intended to alter the common law other than as clearly and plainly specified in the statute.” Time Ins. Co., Inc. v. Burger, 712 So. 2d 389, 393 (Fla. 1998). Accordingly, such an interpretation would mean that statutory bad faith cases cannot proceed unless the claimant has specifically complied will all statutory requirements. After the promulgation of this statute, the Department created a CRN form: Form DFS-10-363. Form DFS-10-363 lays out 15 requirements: 1. Complainants Name; 2. Complainants Address; 3. Complainants E-mail address; 4. Complainant type (Insured or otherwise); 5. Insured’s Name; 6. Insurance Policy Number; 7. Insurance Claim Number; 8. Attorney’s Name; 9. Attorney’s Address; 10. Attorney’s E-mail Address; 11. Type of Insurer (authorized or otherwise); 12. Name of Insurer; 13. Address of Insurer; 14. Type of Insurance (Commercial Property & Casualty or otherwise); and 15. Reason for Notice. As these requirements are all information required by the Department, according to Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, they each must be stated with specificity. The Purported Notice fails to meet the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 624.155 on the following grounds. Deficiency #1 Section 624.155(3)(b)(4), Florida Statutes, requires the CRN to reference 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. Complainant is the Insured and not a third-party claimant; therefore, the Purported Notice must include specific language from the subject Policy that is relevant to the alleged violations. It does not. Rather, the Purported Notice states the following vague language without citing specific Policy provisions: “SafePoint failed to properly apply the Loss Settlement and Loss Payment provisions of the policy. In addition to the policy sections specifically cited Insured’s herein, any endorsements or changes to said sections are relevant to the claim for civil remedy. There may be additional policy language relevant to this violation that may be discovered.” General, vague and overbroad references to policy provisions does not satisfy the specificity required by § 624.155(3)(b)(4), Fla. Stat. As such, the Purported Notice is deficient as a matter of law. This deficiency applies to all allegations in the Purported Notice, including but not limited to Claim Denial, Claim Delay, Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer and Unfair Trade Practice, supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a); 624.155(5)(a)(1); 624.155(5); 626.9541(i) Florida Statutes. On March 3, 2021, the Fourth District Court of Appeal issued a relevant opinion in Junior Julien v. United Property and Casualty Insurance Company, No. 4D19-2763. In Julien, the insured appealed the circuit court’s dismissal of his lawsuit against his insurer, finding that the insured’s Civil Remedy Notice (“CRN”) failed to satisfy the statutory requirement that an insured “state with specificity” the policy language and the statutory provisions at issue. In his CRN, the insured cited numerous statutory provisions and listed nearly every provision in the insurance policy. On appeal, the Fourth District affirmed the dismissal and agreed with the circuit court that the CRN failed to specify the statutory and policy provisions at issue. Like the CRN in Julien, the Purported Notice fails to “state with specificity” the policy language at issue. Deficiency #2 Section 624.155(3)(b)(2), Florida Statutes, requires that the CRN state with specificity the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation. The Purported Notice does not supply specific facts or circumstances that explain the allegations. Rather, the Purported Notice contains incorrect facts and fails to explain how the purported facts constitute violations of Florida law. The Purported Notice asserts general allegations consisting of conclusory and inaccurate statements rather than specific allegations of fact regarding any alleged misconduct or statutory violations. For example, the Purported Notice states, “SafePoint…has refused to tender sufficient payment when under all circumstances it should have done so, had they acted fairly and honestly.” However, these statements are conclusory, inaccurate and without factual basis. This is a claim for roof damage that was late reported on October 2, 2022, four (4) days after the alleged date of loss, September 28, 2022. On October 21, 2022, SafePoint inspected the property and documented any visible damage including damages related to the reported cause of loss. Contrary to the assertion in the Purported Notice, “Claim Denial” the claim was not denied, rather coverage was opened for the loss. Therefore, on January 23, 2023, SafePoint notified the Complainant of the coverage decision in the amount of $20,465.95 under Coverage A – Dwelling, less recoverable depreciation $1,270.53, less non-recoverable depreciation $637.43, less hurricane deductible $0.00 for a net payment to the Insured in the amount of $18,557.99. Further, an additional payment was issued under Coverage D – Fair Rental Value $30,766.49, less hurricane deductible $600, Less amount over policy limit $26,766.49 for a net payment to the Insured in the amount of $3,400.00. Further, on March 13, 2024, SafePoint issued a supplemental payment for Coverage D (Loss of Rent) in the amount of $3,600.00 to Insured. The payments to tendered to the Insured were in full compliance and satisfaction of the terms and conditions under the Policy. It is evident that the statement of facts falls short of the specificity required by Fla. Stat. §624.155. The above noted deficiencies apply to all allegations in the Purported Notice, including but not limited to Claim Denial, Claim Delay, Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer and Unfair Trade Practice, supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a); 624.155(5)(a)(1); 624.155(5); 626.9541(i) Florida Statutes. Deficiency #3 Finally, the Complainant failed to respond to each of the fields set forth on the DFS Form with the requisite specificity and as outlined herein as well as including but not limited to, the use of the attorney’s firm’s email address, “INSURED@MCDONALDBARNHILL.COM” for that of the Complainant. Therefore, the Purported Notice is legally deficient and fails to satisfy the condition precedent to filing a bad faith action. See Pin Pon, 2020 WL 6588379; 2021 WL 824438. STATUTORY ALLEGATIONS 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. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 624.155(1)(a)(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. Section 626.9541(1)(i), (o), or (x). SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. §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. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 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: SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 626.9541(1)(i)3a: Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. The allegations set forth in the Purported Notice are denied as they are mere conclusory allegations unsupported by facts, devoid of logic and intended solely to tarnish SafePoint’s name and reputation. SafePoint has at all times, acted fairly, honestly and in good faith in its dealings with the Complainant. SafePoint did not fail to promptly settle the claim or attempt to settle the claim in order to influence settlement under a different portion of the Policy. SafePoint conducted a reasonable and prudent investigation of the claim and acted upon all communications from the Complainant. SafePoint promptly and appropriately communicated with the Complainant and provided explanations for the actions and decisions that were made. SafePoint retained a field adjuster and conducted an inspection of the subject property to investigate the Complainant’s claim. Thereafter, Safepoint made a coverage decision and issued payment to Complainant in full compliance and satisfaction with the terms and conditions of the Policy. Notwithstanding the deficiencies in, and the invalidity of, the Purported Notice, SafePoint denies any wrongdoing. It specifically denies that it committed the acts asserted or violated Florida Statutes as alleged in the Purported Notice. Please be advised, by this letter, SafePoint neither waives, nor is estopped, from asserting any and all rights it may have in law, or, under the terms of the policy. In fact, SafePoint hereby again, expressly, and specifically, reserves all of its rights, without exception or limitation. If you have any questions or concerns with this response, or, regarding any other matter, please contact me in writing. Sincerely, /s/Ari Zeltzer Ari A. Zeltzer, Esq. Staff Counsel SafePoint Insurance Cc: Florida Department of Financial Services
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