Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     792248
Filing Accepted:  11/14/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
DANIEL J. BUENZ INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A TRUSTEE OF CO-TRUSTEE OF THE JOINT TRUST AGREEMENT OF D   First Name  
Street Address * 350 VIA ESPLANADE
City, State Zip * PUNTA GORDA, FL 33950
Email Address * JULEBUENZ@YAHOO.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   DANIEL J. BUENZ INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A TRUSTEE OF CO-TRUSTEE OF THE JOINT TRUST AGREEMENT OF D   First Name  
Policy # * SJ31142492 Claim #* SL22207286
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* WILKES First Name * LEVI Initial
Street Address* 925 FEDERAL HWY
City, State Zip* BOCA RATON , FL 33432
Email Address * LWILKES@KPATTORNEY.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):* KERRIE TOMASICH
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.
624.155(1)(b)(3) Except as to liability coverages, failing to promptly settle claims, when the obligation to settle a claim has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f) Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of the basis in the insurance policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(j) Altering or amending an insurance adjuster’s report without: (I) Providing a detailed explanation as to why any change that has the effect of reducing the estimate of the loss was made; and (II) Including on the report or as an addendum to the report a detailed list of all changes made to the report and the identity of the person who ordered each change; or (III) Retaining all versions of the report, and including within each such version, for each change made within such version of the report, the identity of each person who made or ordered such change;
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Loss settlement provision
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Hurricane Ian struck with Plaintiff’s property devastating the property and uprooting the Insureds way of life. The Insured reported damages to the Carrier shortly after Hurricane Ian. The Property lost power. On October 26, 2022, the field adjuster, Kris Bailey, for Defendant inspected the Property. Upon information and belief, Bailey created an original estimate of covered damages that was $24,876.13. On November 1, 2022, another field adjuster, Charles Murray, re-inspected the interior of the property and purportedly adjusted the Bailey Estimate (those bolded in Estimate to create a valuation of $37,189.42 replacement cost value and $35,523.11 of actual cash value. How Mr. Murray came to his conclusions and valuations including why no depreciation for the roof was taken and why other amounts were depreciated are largely unknown as such methodology is not spelled out by the policy and appears to be unilaterally applied by the carrier by unknown and unspoken terms. Notably the adjusters found high wind damages to the screen enclosure, soffits and drywall collapse, garage door, outdoor piping from trees toppling, exterior lighting and fans, exterior wall debris impacts, rafters and other portions of the roofing system. This is significant given that in the midst of litigation with late disclosed expert opinions the Defendant attempts to contradict its own coverage decision on the claim by a paid actor and engineer—Adam Coon. It should be noted that Mr. Murray’s inspection was a reinspection (of only the exterior) finding glaring errors with his predecessor, yet no effort was made by carrier to reassess the interior. There is no indication of Mr. Murray’s credentials in engineering or roofing or roof repairability, yet Mr. Murray does note: There are a couple of rows on the lower rear elevation slope and on the lower left elevation slope that are adjacent to the roll roof that are loose and some of the tiles have shifted been lifted and shifted out of alignment. What is clear from the Murray report is there is little or no regard for the wind speeds and how that might play out as far as damages (i.e. wind speeds exceeding design wind ratings for roof and windows). Defendant did have a “roof consultant” create a report which its report suggest 125mph at the subject location. It also acknowledges the roof tile present on the home was “ceetile” which is discontinued and no longer has product approval. None of the adjusters on behalf of the carrier undertook any investigation as to the availability of tile of even had the roofing knowledge to know whether building code and construction methods would allow the roof to be repaired. The Carrier took/takes the position that roof tiles can simply be harvested from slopes and put on others to avoid building code and statutory requirements. a. Presuit Offer On August 28, 2023, prior to initiating litigation the Plaintiff fulfilled its statutory requirement by providing the Defendant with the opportunity to resolve all liabilities in regards ot the claim (including bad faith) for $78,500. In response the Defendant made a single offer—not an undisputed payment—of only $20,635.00 to resolve all damages incurred. II. Conduct of Carrier The conduct of the Carrier and its agents in this case have put the Insured at a severe deficit and disadvantage regarding a policy which was meant to cover them and their property for this exact scenario—a devasting and memorable Hurricane for the state of Florida. During the litigation process intentional delay and concealment of evidence with regards to the claim process ensued and prejudiced the Insured in the prosecution of its case including the late disclosure of expert opinions and concealment of documents created by its adjusters whom the coverage decision was based on. More than two-year have passed since the original date of loss. The carrier has still refused to pay the fully covered amount owed under the policy; has even refused to pay undisputed losses (as identified by its own pricing expert. The carrier is aware of damage sustained by the insured’s property and has not taken any meaningful ensuing action on the known covered loss. The deposition taken of the Carrier’s field adjuster reveals unfair patterns and practices by the Carrier in regards to its engagement of field adjusters including the use of outside, uneducated adjusters on Florida law, construction practices and norms. Field adjusting office are hand picked to carry out a biased and predictable role for the carrier by going so far as running CLEs for the hand-picked companies on the way it wants its adjusters to act and inspect and estimate no matter how wrong the practice may be legally. The Carrier further layers delays and fault into the claim process by delegating that field adjusters cannot assess the discontinued nature of roof tiles and cannot make allocation for loss of use despite the dire circumstances of the Insured in these situations. Furthermore, its clear that multiple estimates and draft estimates were completed on the claim yet the Carrier fail to explain why the estimate of damages changed but instead kept such estimates completely hidden from the Insured. During the litigation process it was furthermore learned that Adam Coon used misleading wind data for the property and which contradicted the carrier’s own determination that winds were in the range of 125 miles per hour. Further the Defendant took the bold approach of contradicting it own agents in using the paid for Mr. Coon to testify for them at trial that the roof sustained no wind damage. III. Violations The carrier’s actions are in violation of the Loss Settlement provision of the policy as well as the following Florida Statutes: 624.155(1)(b)(1): Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests. 624.155(1)(b)(3): Except as to liability coverages, failing to promptly settle claims, when the obligation to settle a claim has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage. Through both Pre-suit documents and post-suit discovery the Carrier knows full well that it failed to pay for all covered expenses, and monies owed under the Policy. Instead of acknowledging that fact in litigation and putting funds in court registry and admitting liability it continues to litigate in bad faith and contrary to its own agents opinions. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims This includes a lack of training on field adjusters and agents used by the carrier and the willingness to put agents with a lack of knowledge as to residential building methods in the line of duty. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b): Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. The Carrier systematically unilaterally applies its own definition and formulas for depreciation which it fails to apply neutrally or consistently among its Florida clients. Upon information and belief, the carrier fails to put definitions and formulas into its policies so that it can underpay insureds and the insureds not have expressed language to point to in order to tell the Carrier their estimate was wrong. The carrier furthermore represents its policies and loss settlement provision do not require matching when Fla. Stat. 626.9744 mandates matching, which must be incorporated into the contract, and its own policy loss settlement provisions states it pays for “like construction, and use”. Fla. Stat 626.9541 (i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims The deposition of field adjusters in this matter revealed that’s adjusters were not provided weather data and such data was not part of his rudimentary analysis in determining the integrity of the roof and roof damages. A fundamental flaw and pattern and practice of the Carrier is to avoid determining accurate weather data for its agents and information regarding the building envelope as it might suggest or lead the adjuster to concerns that the roofing system was compromised due to wind thresholds being exceeded. Further adjusters, both field and desk, are ill educated on Florida’s matching statute and how that applies to discontinued roofing tiles as such application would surely hurt the bottom line profits of the Carrier. Fla. Stat 626.9541 (i) (3) (f)Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of the basis in the insurance policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement The deposition of field adjusters in this matter revealed that’s adjusters were not provided weather data and such data was not part of his rudimentary analysis in determining the integrity of the roof and roof damages. A fundamental flaw and pattern and practice of the Carrier is to avoid determining accurate weather data for its agents and information regarding the building envelope as it might suggest or lead the adjuster to concerns that the roofing system was compromised due to wind thresholds being exceeded. Further adjusters, both field and desk, are ill educated on Florida’s matching statute and how that applies to discontinued roofing tiles as such application would surely hurt the bottom line profits of the Carrier. Fla. Stat 626.9541 (i)(j) failing to explain changes in estimates created by the carrier and provide those estimates to the Insured. The Defendant’s privilege log outlines several draft reports, sketches of damage and estimates which the carrier failed to share with the Insured. These documents being created by persons who were relied upon in the adjustement of the claim on the insurance company and its agent creating issues of transparence and probable issues of misrepresentation. The Carrier is clearly not treating the insured with good faith claims conduct (pre or post lawsuit); failing to pay a claim clearly owed; not adjusting the claim and evaluating the loss properly, promptly and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to the insured; failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims by its adjusters and placing the company’s interests before the insured’s interests; refusing to pay the full amount owed to the insured despite the fact that the carrier has been on notice of the damages and looking for ways to delay full recovery or any recovery to the insured, when a reasonable carrier in a similar position would have tendered a full payment in accordance with both the policy language and statutory requirements. The carrier’s actions are in violation of Florida Statutes §§ 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a); 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), as well as Section I- Perils Insured Against, subsection 1, providing coverage for direct loss to property unless the damage was caused solely by an excluded or excepted cause of loss; and the loss payment provision under Section I- Conditions requiring payment of a claim within 90 days. All the aforementioned are part of what appears to be an ongoing pattern and practice of behavior of the carrier that it demonstrates a wanton and reckless disregard for the insureds’ rights and a pattern and practice of bad faith claims practices to its insureds across the state of Florida. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, the carrier must: 1.) Pay the complete covered loss in the amount of $ 91,820.66, less any cashed prior payments and less the applicable policy deductible; and 2.) Pay the statutory interest on the amount of unpaid damages from the date of loss to the date payment is finally made as required under chapter 627 and 3) Agree to pay the reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses incurred the Insureds current and pending lawsuit. A copy of this letter and filed form submitted to the FDFS has been sent to the carrier. Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned or Paula Souza at (561)-892-9748 if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Levi Wilkes Attorney at Law
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
nsauer@slideinsurance.com 01-13-2025 Via E-mail & Posting on DFS Website Levi Wilkes, Esq. Kanner & Pintaluga, P.A. 925 S. Federal Highway Boca Raton, FL 33432 lwilkes@kpattorney.com Complainant: Daniel J. Buenz, individually and as a trustee of the Joint Trust Agreement of Daniel J. Buenz Insured: Daniel J. Buenz, individually and as a trustee of the Joint Trust Agreement of Daniel J. Buenz Claim No: SL22207286 Policy No: SJ31142492 Date of loss: 9/28/2022 CRN No.: 792248 Dear Mr. Wilkes, This correspondence constitutes the response of Slide Insurance Company ("Slide") to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation, which you filed on behalf of the Insureds, Daniel J. Buenz, individually, and as a trustee of co-trustee of the Joint Trust Agreement of Daniel J. Buenz and Julene Buenz, and Julene Buenz, individually, and as a trustee of co-trustee of the Joint Trust Agreement of the Daniel J. Buenz and Julene Buenz (the “Insureds”), filed a Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (“CRN”) against Slide Insurance Company (Slide”), alleging violations of Sections 624.155 and 626.9541, Florida Statutes. Slide denies any and all allegations of violations of Florida law or policy provisions regarding the claim adjudication of this matter. The Civil Remedy Notice filed by the Insureds generally alleges that Slide did not attempt to settle the claim in good faith, failed to acknowledge and act promptly with respect to claim and denied claim without conducting reasonable investigation. Slide contends that the Civil Remedy Notice filed by the Insureds is deficient as a matter of law, as it fails to comply with Fla. Stat. §624.155. See 316, Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Ins. Co., 526 F. Supp. 2d 1187 (N.D. Fla. 2008); Rousso v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., 2010 WL 7367059, (S. D. Fla. 2010); Heritage Corp. of South Fla. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, P.A., 580 F. Supp. 2d 1294 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co., 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). Pursuant to § 624.155(3)(b), Fla. Stat., the Notice “shall state with specificity” the following information: 1. The statutory provision, including the specific language, 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. . . .; 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 Notice filed by The Insured fails to meet the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 624.155 on several grounds. First and foremost, with respect to the requirement to identify the person or persons representing the insurer most responsible for or knowledgeable of the facts giving rise to the allegations. The Notice notably contains significant editorialized disagreement with the conduct and conclusions of Slide’s adjusters and experts. The fact that the Insureds do not agree with the findings of Slide does not mean that their claim was not properly and timely adjusted. Moreover, the fact that the Insureds are frustrated that they have to litigate this claim with their unreasonable demands does not mean Slide did not attempt in good faith to settle the claim. The fact that the Insureds have filed yet another civil remedy notice does not mean that they are correct. Instead, it means that the Insureds are using this means to distract from the fact that Slide properly adjusted and attempted to settle this matter. Slide is left to guess the individual(s) who are most responsible and/or knowledgeable of the facts giving rise to the dissatisfaction of the Insureds or the allegations contained in the Notice. In order to comply with the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 624.155, the insured(s) must name the individual(s) involved with specificity to allow Slide to properly investigate the allegations. The Notice, as filed, lacks the requisite specificity as provided in Fla. Stat. § 624.155. Thus, the Notice is insufficient as a matter of law. Second, with respect to the requirement to set forth with specificity the “facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation,” the Notice fails to allege any specific conduct on the part of Slide that would violate any Policy provision or statute. The fact that the insurer does not like the outcome of Slide’s adjustment or Slide’s attempts to settle the claim does not mean there has been any violation. The fact that the Insureds ponder the significance of Slide’s adjusters and engineers does not mean there is a violation. The Notice contains conjecture and supposition as opposed to any facts supporting the conclusory allegations. A disagreement or a differing view of facts does not mean that there is bad faith. The failure to provide specific facts as to the purported conclusions hinders Slide’s ability to appropriately investigate the allegations in the Notice. As a result, the Insureds’ Notice fails to comply with the requirements provided in Fl. Stat. § 624.155(2). Thus, the Notice is insufficient as a matter of law. Third, the Notice fails to satisfy Fla. Statute § 624.155(3)(b)(4) in that it fails to reference specific policy language relevant to the alleged violations. The Notice fails to cite to any section or term in the Policy that was allegedly violated. In fact, no referenced was made to the Policy. As such, the Notice is insufficient as a matter of law to satisfy the specificity requirement of Fla. Stat. § 624.155(3)(b)(4). Next, the Notice filed by the Insureds fail to meet the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 626.9541on several grounds. First and foremost, with respect to the requirement to identify the person or persons representing the insurer most responsible for or knowledgeable of the facts giving rise to the allegations. The Insureds and their attorneys are using the civil remedy notice as a method of penetrating the claims handling process and workings of Slide. They should know better than that. They further seek to violate work-product/attorney-client privileged communications by prying into the privilege log. The rules of Civil Procedure protect privileged documents. That's the state of the law and they would be better served lobbying the legislature to change the rules instead of crying wolf every time they don't get their way. The fact that they are dissatisfied at the outcome of the adjustment from Slide does not mean the adjusters claims handlers and anybody else working at Slide needs more education, as the Insureds even fail to address what education is lacking. Blind allegations, conjecture, suppositions, and histrionics do not mean a claim was handled in bad faith. Finally, the notice fails with respect to its requirement to specify how Slide may “cure” the alleged violations. The purpose of a Civil Remedy Notice is to provide a carrier with one last opportunity to “cure” the alleged violations. In this instance, the only real “cure” that the Notice is seeking is full payment consistent with the Insureds’ submitted estimate notwithstanding Slide’s right to investigate and adjust the loss. In addition, the Notice seeks remedies that are “extra-contractual”. A demand for a cure is properly limited to the four corners of the Policy and thus the extra-contractual demands render the Notice insufficient on its face. For the aforementioned reasons, the Insured’s Civil Remedy Notice is insufficient as a matter of law. Nonetheless, the following shall provide you with the accurate facts and circumstances regarding this matter, which shall demonstrate that Slide has not violated any Policy or statutory provisions. Prior to September 28, 2022, Slide issued a policy of insurance, Policy No. UHV 4369606 07 01 (the “Policy”) to the Insureds, which insured the property located at 1151 NW 111 Avenue, Plantation, FL 33322 (the “Property”), and was in effect from February 1, 2023 through August 15, 2023, subject to certain terms, conditions, and limitations. On October 1, 2022, the Plaintiffs reported the subject claim to Slide. On October 15, 2022, independent field adjuster, Kris Bailey of Compass Adjusting Services Inc. (“Compass”). inspected the Property, inclusive of the roof. While Mr. Bailey did not walk the roof pursuant to this training to avoid doing so to prevent any further roof damage, he utilized a ladder to inspect each elevation of the roof. As evidenced in his photo report and as confirmed during his deposition, Mr. Bailey did not observe any damage on the Plaintiffs’ tile roof covering or evidence of water intrusion stemming from same During Mr. Bailey’s inspection, he observed evidence that Hurricane’s Ian’s winds breached the soffit of the Property’s front elevation, which resulted in the attic insulation being blown out, along with the drywall ceiling on the back porch. However, as confirmed by Mr. Bailey and Mr. Daniel Buenz during their deposition, there was no water intrusion in the attic and/or the attic insulation remained dry. The only sheathing damage Mr. Bailey observed was to the back porch, which is covered by the Plaintiffs’ tile roof covering. On or around October 3, 2022, Mr. Buenz recommended that Slide have another field adjuster inspect his roof, as Mr. Bailey did not walk same. The Plaintiff also advised that there were many loose (not missing or broken) tiles on same. Ultimately, Slide obliged and authorized Charles Murray of Compass Adjusting to inspect the Property. On November 1, 2022, Mr. Murray inspected the property, inclusive of the Property’s roof, which he walked. During his inspection of the roof, he did not find any visibly damaged tiles on same. Instead, he found some loose and shifted tiles on the lower rear and left elevation of the roof, which were adjacent to Property’s flat roof. In addition, he did not find any evidence of wind damage to the Plaintiffs’ solar heater panels. As none of the loose roof tiles were broken, Mr. Murray determined that the tiles could be detached and reset. Based on Mr. Murray’s investigation, he prepared an estimate totaling $37,189.42 (RCV), which includes the detaching and resetting of two squares of the Property’s roof tiles, totaling $3,090.68 (RCV). Based on Mr. Murray’s estimate, Slide extended coverage for the Plaintiffs’ claim and issued the Plaintiffs an actual cash value (ACV) payment of their damages, after the subtraction of the applicable Hurricane Deductible of $8,135.00. On or around February 3, 2023, on behalf of the Plaintiffs, Slide received an email from K Simon Construction, advising that more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the Plaintiffs’ roof was damaged, along with a roof replacement estimate totaling $90,831.09. The estimate prepared by from K Simon Construction includes the replacement of the tile and flat roof covering, as well as the detaching an resetting of the solar panels. While the estimate also includes photos of purported roof damage, the photographs do not support that more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the tile roof covering is damaged. K Simon’s photographs reflect one chipped tile and mortar cracks, which is damage consistent of age-related deterioration. Nevertheless, on or around March 16, 2023, Slide retained Precision Claim Solutions LLC (“PCS”) to prepare a Roof Tile Identification & Sourcing Report (“Tile ID Report”). Pursuant to PCS’s Tile ID Report, there were (30) thirty of the Plaintiffs’ identical field tiles, and thirty-six (36) of the Plaintiffs’ identical hip/ridge cap tiles available to conduct repairs, if necessary. As there were no broken and or wind damaged tiles on the roof, this amount found be PCS more than sufficient to provide a buffer for the tiles that needed to be detached and reset on the roof. On March 30, 2023, Slide provide the Plaintiffs with PCS’ Tile ID Report and advised the Plaintiffs that Slide is standing on its decision to repair the roof. On or around May 19, 2023, the Plaintiffs requested for their roof to be reconsidered for a replacement. Thus, Slide authorized PCS to conduct a physical inspection of the Plaintiffs’ roof. On June 7, 2023, PCS inspected the Plaintiffs’ roof and determined that there was no storm damage on same. Instead, PCS found evidence of settlement, prior repairs, and failed mortar bonds on the roof, which again is typical of a roof that was approximately nineteen (19) years old. Pursuant to Slide’s investigation, Slide ultimately stood on it decision to repair the roof and the Plaintiffs filed the subject lawsuit. Furthermore, it important to note that Mr. Buenz’s deposition testimony also supports Slide’s coverage determination pertaining to the roof, as he personally observed evidence of age-related deterioration on the roof prior to Hurricane Ian, and that the slipped tiles could be reattached to the roof. For example, prior to Hurricane Ian, Mr. Buenz acknowledged that he observed tiles that contained corner cracks on the roof (some of which were caused by foot traffic) and mortar separations and/or loose tiles (specifically on ridge caps) due to the aging of the roof. While Mr. Buenz testified that he repaired the latter early 2021, he does not possess evidence of same. After Hurricane Ian, the only new phenomenon that Mr. Buenz observed on the roof were slipped tiles, which he testified were not broken and could possibly be reattached to the roof. Mr. Buenz also testified that he did not observe any evidence of debris impact, roof openings, or underlayment damage to the tile roof covering. In fact, but for someone manually lifting the tiles, the roof’s underlayment is not visible. Based on the forgoing record evidence in this case, Slide stands on the position that the roof is repairable As iterated above, throughout the investigation of this claim, Slide has been diligent in responding to the Insureds’ demands. The real issue in this matter stems from the Insureds’ disagreement with the amount of coverage afforded for the instant claim. While an insurance company is required to settle claims that should be settled, it is not required to settle claims that are legitimately contested. Florida law continually affirms the principle that an insurer has the right to investigate claims presented for payment. An insurance company is expressly afforded an opportunity to evaluate its rights and liabilities. Slide stands behind its coverage determination and the agreement signed by both the Insureds and Slide and maintains the Insured’s claim was properly investigated and adjusted in good faith. As outlined above, Slide has abided by the Policy and the coverage determination was made in accordance with the terms agreed upon by the parties. In addition, Slide has cured any alleged statutory violations or factual allegations set forth in the Notice. As such, Slide has complied with all policy provisions and applicable Florida law regarding the adjudication of this matter. Sincerely, /s/ Summer Williams Summer Williams, 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