Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     792056
Filing Accepted:  11/13/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
PEREZ   First Name   SANTE
Street Address * 124 CHESTNUT CIRCLE
City, State Zip * ROYAL PALM BEACH, FL 33411
Email Address * SANTEPEREZ@YAHOO.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   PEREZ   First Name   SANTE
Policy # * 08077569 Claim #* 202409004190
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* KRAPF First Name * GRANT Initial W
Street Address* 2790 SUNSET POINT RD
City, State Zip* CLEARWATER , FL 33759
Email Address * GRANT@KRAPFLEGAL.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):* DAYLAN BRICE, STEVE DURANT, MATTHEW ALSTON, AND ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL FROM, OR AGENT OF, SLIDE INSURANCE COMPANY WHO WAS INVOLVED IN THE CLAIM.
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
Claim Delay
Unfair Trade Practice
Other : Misrepresenting the terms of the insurance policy
Other : Not treating the Insured with good faith claims conduct
Other : Looking for ways to deny full recovery to the Insured
Other : Looking for ways to delay full recovery to the Insured
Other : Failing to properly investigate the Insured's loss
Other : Failing to provide the Insured with the full benefits awarded under the contract of insurance in a t
Other : Not training, supervising, or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made,
Other : Not adjusting claims and evaluating loss properly
Other : Shifting the burden of insuring the loss to the Insured
Other : Intentionally misstating the terms, conditions, and benefits of the insurance policy to the insured
Other : Failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims
* 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)(2) A material misrepresentation made to an insured or any other person having an interest in the proceeds payable under such contract or policy, for the purpose and with the intent of effecting settlement of such claims, loss, or damage under such contract or policy on less favorable terms than those provided in, and contemplated by, such contract or policy.
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)(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.

Reference to specific policy language: The violations alleged are statutorily based and do not rely on any specific policy language. "It is an accepted principle of law that when parties contract upon a matter which is the subject of statutory regulation, the parties are presumed to have entered into their agreement with reference to such statute, which becomes a part of the contract, unless the contract discloses a contrary intention." Westside EKG Assocs. v. Found. Health, 932 So. 2d 214, 216 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), aff'd, 944 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 2006).
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Slide Insurance Company (the "Insurer") has committed the following in handling the Insured's claim: 1) failure to act in due diligence and good faith to resolve claims; 2) placing the financial interest of Insurer before that of the policyholder and the Insured; 3) looking for ways to deny benefit payments and otherwise "low ball" or "stone wall" claims; 4) not adjusting the claims promptly and fairly; 5) not attempting in good faith to settle claims; 6) conducting inadequate investigations; 7) failing to employ policies and procedures to conduct adequate investigations; 8) denying a claim which it knew or should have known the policy and Florida law provided coverage for; and 9) misrepresenting the terms of the insurance policy. On or about December 16, 2023, while the subject policy was in full force and effect, the Insured's property was severely damaged by wind. The areas impacted include but are not limited to the roofing system, exterior, garage, master bathroom, kitchen, dining room, and living room. The Insured timely submitted a claim on September 9, 2024, to the Insurer for wind damage and the ensuing damage therefrom. Thereafter, the Insurer assigned claim number 202409004190 to the loss and sent a representative to inspect the property on September 23, 2024. Notably, the representative's report included the incorrect date of loss, which questions whether he properly investigated the claim. Then in a letter dated October 16, 2024, the Insurer notified the Insured that it was denying coverage for the loss. This coverage decision is incorrect. Denying coverage for the damage was wrongful as the damages are covered under the policy. Given the denial, the Insured's disagreement with the coverage decision, and the scope and nature of the damage resulting from wind, the Insured retained a public adjuster. After assessing the damage and the true scope of repairs, the public adjuster produced an estimate identifying $141,091.45 in covered damage to the dwelling. The foregoing estimate, photographs, sworn proof of loss, and a letter of representation from the public adjuster were sent to the Insurer. Upon receiving notice of the loss, the Insurer had the duty to provide the full benefits under the policy. This includes providing the Insured with a proper investigation and the funds necessary to return the home to its pre-loss condition. However, when the Insurer conducted its inspection of the insured property, the Insurer's representative failed to conduct a thorough and adequate investigation, or the representative intentionally ignored the damage observed and failed to make truthful and unbiased reports of the facts after investigating. As a result, the Insurer breached the policy by failing to fully indemnify the Insured for the covered loss. The Insurer misrepresented the loss and wrongfully denied coverage for the damage sustained to the Insured's property. According to the claims determination letter, the Insurer's representative observed damage to the insured property, but attributed the cause of this damage to several causes excluded under the policy. However, the Insurer never retained a professional engineer to determine the cause of this damage. Instead, the Insurer relied upon the causation opinions of a lay witness who will likely testify during his deposition that the Insurer never retained him to provide any causation opinions and he lacks the credentials to even do so. The Insurer misrepresents its representative as an expert but the representative is not a licensed professional engineer but rather a "roof consultant." Also, the Insurer knows or should know that when independent perils converge and no single cause can be considered the sole or proximate cause, it is appropriate to apply the concurring cause doctrine. Sebo v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 208 So. 3d 694, 697 (Fla. 2016). The concurring cause doctrine states that coverage may exist where an insured risk constitutes a concurrent cause of the loss even when it is not the prime or efficient cause. Id. at 698. A covered peril that meets with an uncovered peril may still provide for coverage under a policy when the covered peril triggered the events that eventually led to the loss. Id. at 697. The Insurer intentionally ignored covered damage to deny the reported loss and wrongfully fail to pay the Insured. This is an underhanded attempt to place the financial interests of the Insurer over those of the Insured and to delay and frustrate the Insured's ability to have his claim adjusted promptly to begin restoring his property. There may be further wrongful conduct which has not been made known to the Insured at this moment. Certain conduct or actions may be discovered throughout discovery or cannot be verified without a review of the Insurer's claim file and standards and procedures for the adjustment and investigation of claims. In short, the Insurer is not acting with due regard for the Insured's interests or safety. In Florida the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. The Insurer has breached this trust and its duty to the Insured. The Insurer and its agents conducted cursory and inadequate investigations and wrongfully denied coverage for a loss that should have been covered under the subject policy. Moreover, the Insurer has engaged in bad faith practices designed to delay claims and prevent the Insured from recovering what is rightfully owed under the subject policy of insurance. The Insurer's actions and inactions have continued to frustrate and delay the resolution of the Insured claim. The Insurer's actions amount to but are not limited to the following: 1. Claim denial 2. Claim delay 3. Not treating the Insured with good faith claims conduct 4. Looking for way to reduce recovery to the Insured 5. Looking for ways to deny recovery to the Insured 6. Not adjusting claims and evaluating loss properly, promptly and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to the Insured 7. Not training, supervising or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made, but rather placing the company's interests before the Insured's interests 8. Placing the financial interest of the Insurer over that of the health and safety of the Insured 9. Shifting the burden of investigating onto the Insured 10. Conducting inadequate investigations 11. Making material misrepresentations Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this civil remedy notice, the Insurer must: (1). Admit full coverage for the Insured's loss. (2). Tender full benefits owed to the Insured under the insurance contract. A copy of this form submitted to the FDFS has been sent via e-mail to the following parties providing them notice of the filing of the civil remedy notice. Please e-mail any response to this civil remedy notice to badfaith@krapflegal.com. Via E-mail: Slide Insurance Company P.O. Box 1779 Columbia, SC 29202-1779 claims@slideinsurance.com
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
grant@krapflegal.com 01-28-2026 The details herein have been amicably resolved between the parties; therefore, we withdraw this Civil Remedy Notice.
mnixon@slideinsurance.com 12-04-2024 Via E-mail & Posting on DFS Website Grant Krapf, Esq. Krapf Legal 2790 Sunset Point Road Clearwater, FL 33759 grant@krapflegal.com badfaith@krapflegal.com Complainant: Sante Perez Insured: Sante Perez Claim No: 202409004190 Policy No: 08077569 Date of loss: 12/16/23 CRN Filing No.: 792056 Dear Mr. Krapf: 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 Sante Perez (“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, 357 So.3d 136, 138-39 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022) (holding that the trial court properly determined that a CRN that failed to state with specificity the relevant policy language was legally insufficient). Finally, the Notice 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 September 9, 2024, as a claim for alleged damages from an alleged December 16, 2023, weather event in Palm Beach County. Slide promptly adjusted the loss, including but not limited, to sending Steve Durant, Roof Consultant with Precision Claim Solutions, to inspect the insured property. Based on Slide’s investigation and evaluation of the underlying claim, on or about October 28, 2024, Slide notified the Insured that there is no coverage for the alleged loss pursuant to the Policy’s terms, conditions, endorsements, limitations, and exclusions. 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 multiple 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 of violation individually 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. 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 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. 3. 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 manner. Information necessary and relevant to the proceeding of the claim was communicated to the Insured or their representatives in an appropriate and timely manner. 4. Misrepresenting the Terms of the Insurance Policy: Denied. Slide has not misrepresented the terms of the insurance policy to the Insured or any other person having an interest in the proceeds payable under the subject policy for insurance. The underlying claim has been investigated and adjusted in as thorough and expedient a manner as possible. Slide routinely communicated relevant information to the Insured and/or their representatives. Thus, any such allegation is without merit and unsupported by the facts of the underlying claim. 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. Not Treating the Insured with Good Faith Claims Conduct: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is wholly denied. Slide’s adjusters have at all times acted fairly and honestly and in good faith towards the Insured in the adjustment of the underlying claim, treating all insureds equally. Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the requirements of Florida law and the policy of insurance. The Insured’s assertions to the contrary are unsupported by the facts. Thus, this allegation is without basis and therefore denied. 6. Looking for Ways to Deny Full Recovery to the Insured: Slide denies that it denied full recovery to the Insured as is evident from the facts outlined above. Slide promptly acknowledged the claim and timely initiated its investigation of the loss including inspection of the subject property. Slide acted in accordance with its duties and obligations pursuant to the policy of insurance and Florida law, and responded appropriately to information and documentation that was provided. Thus, Slide asserts that this allegation is without basis and therefore denied. 7. Looking for Ways to Delay Full Recovery to the Insured: Slide denies that it delayed full recovery to the Insured as is evident from the facts outlined above. Slide promptly acknowledged the claim and timely initiated its investigation of the loss including inspection of the subject property. Slide acted in accordance with its duties and obligations pursuant to the policy of insurance and Florida law, and responded appropriately to information and documentation that was provided. Thus, Slide asserts that this allegation is without basis and therefore denied. 8. Failing to Properly Investigate the Insured’s Loss: Denied. Slide has not failed to properly investigate the Insured’s loss. On the contrary, the underlying claim was investigated and adjusted in as thorough and expedient a manner as possible.? Therefore, Slide at all times has properly investigated the Insured’s loss. Thus, this allegation is without basis and therefore denied. 9. Failing to Provide the Insured with the Full Benefits Awarded Under the Contract of Insurance: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is wholly denied. Slide promptly acknowledged the claim and timely initiated its investigation of the loss including inspection of the subject property. Slide acted in accordance with its duties and obligations pursuant to the policy of insurance and Florida law, and responded appropriately to information and documentation that was provided. Thus, Slide asserts that this allegation is without basis and therefore denied. 10. Not Training, Supervising, or Managing Adjusters Properly so that Prompt and Full Payments are Made: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is wholly 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, inspection of the insured property and communications with the Insured and their representatives. Accordingly, Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Additionally, 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 manner. 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. 11. Not Adjusting Claims and Evaluating the Loss Properly: Denied. Slide has not failed to adjust the claim and evaluate the loss properly. On the contrary, the underlying claim was investigated and adjusted in as thorough and expedient a manner as possible. Therefore, Slide at all times has properly investigated and evaluated the Insured’s loss. Thus, this allegation is without basis and therefore denied. 12. Shifting the Burden of Insuring the Loss to the Insured: Denied. Slide has not shifted the burden of Insuring the Loss to the Insured.? Thus, this allegation is without basis and therefore denied. 13. Intentionally Misstating the Terms, Conditions, and Benefits of the Insurance Policy to the Insured: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is wholly denied. At no time did Slide misstate the terms, conditions, and benefits of the insurance policy to the Insured or any other person having an interest in the proceeds payable under the subject policy for insurance. The underlying claim has been investigated and adjusted in as thorough and expedient a manner as possible. Slide routinely communicated relevant information to the Insured and/or their representatives. Thus, any such allegation is without merit and unsupported by the facts of the underlying claim. 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. 14. Failing to Implement Proper Standards for the Adjustment and Investigation of Claims: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is wholly 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, inspection of the insured property and communications with the Insured and their representatives. Accordingly, Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Additionally, 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 manner. 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 notified that there is no coverage for the alleged loss pursuant to the Policy’s terms, conditions, endorsements, limitations, and exclusions. Moreover, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 2. 626.9541(1)(i)(2): Denied. Slide has not made any material misrepresentations to the Insured or any other person having an interest in the proceeds payable under the subject policy for insurance. The underlying claim has been investigated and adjusted in as thorough and expedient a manner as possible. Slide routinely communicated relevant information to the Insured and/or their representatives. Thus, any such allegation is without merit and unsupported by the facts of the underlying claim. 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. 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/or 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)(d): Denied. Slide has not denied the underlying claim without reasonable investigation of the reported loss. As referenced in the factual narrative above, Slide investigated the reported claim and adjusted the loss in as thorough and expedient a manner as possible.? Following the investigation and evaluation of the underlying claim, Slide notified the Insured that there is no coverage for the alleged loss pursuant to the Policy’s terms, conditions, endorsements, limitations, and exclusions. Accordingly, 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. 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’s 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