Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     792554
Filing Accepted:  11/14/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
CHURCHWELL   First Name   JOSHUA
Street Address * 3452 E US HIGHWAY 90
City, State Zip * MADISON, FL 32340
Email Address * JOSHUA.CHURCHWELL@MERCK.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   CHURCHWELL   First Name   JOSHUA
Policy # * P006613862 Claim #* 253654
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* MELLA First Name * OCTAVIO Initial
Street Address* 757 NW 27TH AVE, FLOOR 3
City, State Zip* MIAMI , FLORIDA 33125
Email Address * OMELLA@STABINSKILAW.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10117
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* ANDRES MARIN, BRITTNEY FEDRICK, ROSEMARY RIVAS, ALEXIS ALLEN
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
Unfair Trade Practice
Claim Denial
* Statutory provision(s) which the insurer allegedly violated.
 
624.155(1)(b)(1) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Coverage A – Dwelling: "Covers your dwelling, at the property address shown on your Policy Declarations, including attached structures, and wall-to-wall carpeting. Coverage A also includes coverage for the materials and supplies located on or next to the dwelling used to construct, alter, or repair your dwelling or other structures and the building and outdoor equipment used for the service of your dwelling" Loss Settlement Basis: "Loss Settlement for Coverage A – Dwelling and Coverage B – Other Structures will be on a Replacement Cost basis. We will pay the cost to repair or replace, without deduction for depreciation, but not more than the least of the following amounts: a. The limit of liability under this policy that applies to the building; b. The replacement cost of that part of the building damaged for equivalent construction and use on the same premises; or c. The amount actually and necessarily spent to repair or replace the damaged building."
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Please find enclosed the civil remedy notice filed for the referenced claim above. As detailed in the notice, the carrier has failed to make a good faith effort to settle the insureds' claim, even when the circumstances clearly permitted and warranted such action. Their conduct has been marked by delays and a refusal to pay the full amount covered by the policy, disregarding their obligation to conduct proper claim investigations and adjustments. This duty is explicitly stated by the appellate court and the Florida Supreme Court in Allstate Indemnity Co. v. Ruiz, 899 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 2005), where it was underscored that insurance companies are bound to act in good faith and with fairness towards their insureds in processing and litigating their claims. Mr. Churchwell first began to experience issues with Security First Insurance on March 27, 2024, when the Carrier’s adjuster, Nick Heilman, indicated that the claim was in process and that a settlement letter would be provided once approvals were secured. However, no settlement letter or follow-up was ever received, and communication from the Carrier stopped. On May 5, 2024, Mr. Churchwell reached out to the Carrier seeking an update. Mr. Heilman replied that the Carrier would only cover damaged siding, not a full replacement as originally estimated. Mr. Churchwell asked if a second opinion could be arranged due to this significant reduction in scope, but Mr. Heilman’s response was brief and did not address his concerns. After minimal communication from the Carrier, Mr. Churchwell retained Continental Public Adjusters to represent him. On August 22, 2024, the public adjuster submitted a Letter of Representation along with the Proof of Loss, preliminary estimate, and photos of the damages to the Carrier. While the Carrier acknowledged receipt, it did not take further action on the claim. On August 27, 2024, Mr. Heilman responded by challenging the validity of the public adjuster’s contract, calling it “not a legal contract” but failing to specify why. The public adjuster confirmed that the contract complied with Florida Statute 626.8796 and reiterated its authority to act on Mr. Churchwell’s behalf. Despite this, Mr. Heilman suggested direct communication with Mr. Churchwell, bypassing his representation, which created further delays. In the weeks that followed, the public adjuster continued to request a response from the Carrier. On October 14, 2024, they resent a revised contract and contacted the Carrier to discuss settlement. Still, the Carrier remained unresponsive. Another follow-up was sent on October 30, 2024, requesting acknowledgment and cooperation on the claim. On October 31, 2024, Mr. Heilman again dismissed the public adjuster’s contract as invalid, providing no explanation and avoiding any discussion of the claims package or Proof of Loss. This repeated refusal to engage led the public adjuster to explore alternative ways to prompt the Carrier’s cooperation. With Mr. Churchwell’s claim still unresolved, the public adjuster sent additional follow-ups on November 6 and November 10, 2024, urging the Carrier to fulfill its obligations. Each follow-up emphasized the urgency of resolution, yet Security First Insurance remained unresponsive, further prolonging Mr. Churchwell’s hardship. This pattern of evasion highlights the Carrier’s lack of commitment to a fair and timely resolution, ultimately leading Mr. Churchwell to file this Civil Remedy Notice. CLAIM INVESTIGATION/ADJUSTMENT VIOLATIONS: The carrier's actions are in violation of the Loss Settlement provision of the policy and 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. The Carrier failed to act fairly by continuously rejecting the public adjuster contract without clarification, disregarding its own obligations to the insured and delaying the claim process. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. The Carrier has exhibited a systematic failure to properly investigate the claim, evidenced by its lack of response to provided documentation, lack of clear communication, and repeated challenges to the public adjuster’s representation. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c): Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. The Carrier has failed to acknowledge and act promptly on the documentation and requests provided by the public adjuster on multiple occasions, leading to protracted delays. This notice is provided in order to perfect a right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by Florida Statute §624.155. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, the carrier must: 1. Recognize the public adjuster’s contract as valid and engage in good-faith negotiations to resolve the claim; 2. Provide a substantive response to the Proof of Loss and claims package submitted on Mr. Churchwell’s behalf; 3. Issue payment for the covered damages as documented in the claims package and Proof of Loss; 4. Reimburse Mr. Churchwell for any additional costs incurred due to the Carrier’s delays and failure to communicate.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
Nick.heilman@securityfirstflorida.com 01-13-2025 Via Electronic Filing: Florida Department of Financial Services Bureau of Consumer Assistance c/o: Civil Remedy Section Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0322 Via Email: Octavio Mella 757 NW 27th Ave, Floor 3 Miami, FL. 33125 Omella@stabinskilaw.com Re: CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE OF INSURER VIOLATION Filing No.: _792554______ Insured: Joshua Churchwell Insurer: Security First Insurance Company Claim No.: 253654 Policy No.: P006613862 Date of Loss: 2/18/24 Dear Sir or Madam: This correspondence is in response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (hereinafter referred to as the “CRN”) was filed by Octavio Mella on behalf of his client, Joshua Hernandez (hereinafter referred to as “Insured”). Please be advised that the undersigned represents the interests of Security First Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as “Security First”) with respect to the above-referenced matter. The Florida Department of Financial Services (hereinafter referred to as “Department”) assigned this CRN an acceptance date of 2/1/2023 and DFS File No.: 671699. This matter concerns a property damage claim made by the Insured pursuant to a homeowners’ insurance policy provided by Security First Policy No. P006613862 and assigned Claim No. 253654. As the basis for filing the CRN against Security First Joshua Churchwell asserts in the “Reasons for Notice” section violations such as Claim delay, Claim denial and Unfair Trade Practice, along with the following statutory violations: 624.155(1)(b)(1) 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) Security First welcomes this opportunity to respond to the CRN and denies each allegation contained therein. The allegations made in the CRN are premature, as the insured has failed to perfect the claim for bad faith and the CRN does not meet the specificity requirement of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. This CRN does not sufficiently support the allegations stated above. As is standard procedure, upon the first notice of the claim, the subject property was dutifully inspected by an SFIC representative which was documented through photographs. I. Perfecting a Claim for Bad Faith SFIC specifically denies all allegations set forth in the Notice. SFIC contends that the Notice should be rejected and returned by the Department of Financial Services as it is premature. Pursuant to statute, there is no potential violation until a breach of contract is established. § 624.1551, Florida Statutes. Accordingly, any Notice filed prior to a finding that SFIC has breached the terms of the policy, is not ripe and is premature and thus fails to perfect Joshua Churchwell rights to pursue civil remedies under Florida Statutes. II. Specificity Requirement The Insured’s CRN violates multiple requirements set forth in the Florida courts’ jurisprudence for Civil Remedy Notices. In addition, it fails to meet even the most basic requirements of the Statute. Pursuant to the terms of the statute, (3)(a) As a condition precedent to bringing an action under this section, the department and the authorized insurer must have been given 60 days’ written notice of the violations. Notice to the authorized insurer must be provided by the department to the e-mail address designated by the insurer under s. 624.422. a. The notice shall be on a form provided by the department and shall state with specificity the following information, and such other information as the department may require (emphasis added): b. (3)(a) As a condition precedent to bringing an action under this section, the department and the authorized insurer must have been given 60 days’ written notice of the violations. Notice to the authorized insurer must be provided by the department to the e-mail address designated by the insurer under s. 624.422. i. The statutory provision, including the specific language of the statute, which the authorized insurer allegedly violated. ii. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation. iii. The name of any individual involved in the violation. iv. 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. v. A statement that the notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section. In interpreting this statute, courts have emphasized the importance of filing specific civil remedy notices. The civil remedy notice is “crucial to the procedural integrity of an action” under the Statute. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Clohessy, 32 F.Supp.2d 1328, 1333 (M.D. Fla. 1998). “It is, without a doubt, a condition that must be satisfied in order for one to perfect the right to sue under the statute.” Id. “In creating this statutory remedy for bad- faith actions, the Legislature provided this sixty-day window as a last opportunity for insurers to comply with their claim-handling obligations when a good-faith decision by the insurer would indicate that contractual benefits are owed.” Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 2000). Thus, the Notice cannot be “vague and ‘shotgun’ in nature,” rather than “the type of specific notice required by the statute that would allow [the insurer] an opportunity to cure.” Heritage Corp. of South Florida v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 580 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1299 (S.D. Fla. 2008). Because it is in derogation of the common law, Section 624.155(1)(b), Florida Statutes must be strictly construed. Talat, 753 So. 2d at 1283 (citing Baxter v. Royal Indem. Co., 285 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). To perfect the right to sue under the statute, the insured must specifically notify the insured of any and all alleged violations claimed. Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 952 F.Supp. 773, 776 (M.D. Fla. 1996) (“Talat I”) See Fox v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., No. 8:16-CV-3254-T-23MAP, 2017 WL 1541294, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2017) (sufficiency means specificity). In Junior Julien v. United Property and Casualty Insurance Company, 311 So.3d 875, 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021), the Honorable Court stated: The Middle District of Florida was confronted with a civil remedy notice that was similarly broad in scope and concluded that listing nearly all policy provisions on the notice did not satisfy the statute. Fox v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., No. 8:16-CV-3254-T-23MAP, 2017 WL 1541294, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2017). The court explained that “[i]f the statute contained no specificity requirement, [then] the [insureds’] casual ‘reference’ to the entire insurance policy undoubtedly would suffice.” Id. But, the court continued, “the Legislature included ‘specific’ or a variant not once but twice in the statute.” Id. As a result, the insureds’ listing of whole sections of the insurance policy “appear[ed] to lack specificity.” Id. In Valenti, the District Court for the Middle District of Florida considered the practical consequences of an insured’s non-specific civil remedy notice. Valenti v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America, 2006 WL 1627276 (M.D. Fla. 2006). The plaintiff’s civil remedy notice included allegations that the defendant conducted an inadequate investigation. The plaintiff, however, failed to identify with the requisite specificity the defendant’s actions that were inadequate. The Middle District held that the plaintiff’s civil remedy notice was insufficient, and stated the following: [T]he civil remedy notice must be specific enough to provide insurers notice of the wrongdoing so the insurer can cure the same within sixty days. … Plaintiffs’ counsel, during the hearing in this matter, argued a civil remedy notice that states “you denied my claim” should be sufficient to place the insurer on notice of what was needed to be cured. Plaintiffs’ counsel further argued that it was up to the insurer, as the insurance expert, to decipher what actions needed to be cured. This argument, in this Court's estimation, is illogical and is counter to the purpose of the civil remedy notice. If a simple “you denied my claim” was sufficient to put insurers on notice, the sixty-day cure period would be little more than a guessing game with the insurer attempting to correctly guess what errors the insured claimed it made in the claims handling process, or risk defending a bad faith action. This surely is not what the legislature had in mind when it created the civil remedy notice. Accordingly, this Court finds that Plaintiffs allegation that Defendant failed to conduct an adequate investigation is insufficient to provide Defendant an opportunity to cure. Id. at *2. The guidance for an insured could not be more clear. “The purpose of the civil remedy notice is to give the insurer one last chance to settle a claim with its insured and avoid unnecessary bad faith litigation.” Lane v. Westfield Insurance Co., 862 So. 2d 774, 779 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Its purpose is not “to give the insured a right of action to proceed against the insurer even after the insured’s claim has been paid or resolved.” Id. Ultimately, conclusory allegations without facts fail to perfect a statutory bad faith claim. Merely alleging the bare minimum allegations is insufficient pursuant to Florida courts’ interpretations of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. III. Conclusion At all times, Security First has acted in good faith in its handling of the claim and it has acted fairly, honestly, and with due regard for the Insured’s interest and in determining obligations to Insured. Specifically, Security First has complied with its obligations under the applicable Florida Statutes and the applicable Security First Insurance policy. Security First specifically denies any claim for bad faith and argues that the insured’s claim for bad faith is premature. Security First continues to reserve all its rights under the policy, at law and in equity. Regardless, Insured’s conclusory allegations fail to place Security First on notice of any purported violations. Furthermore, the Civil Remedy Notice fails to identify how to cure the allegations set forth. The allegations are without basis. It is clear Security First properly handled and adequately investigated the claim. We hope that this response has answered any concerns regarding this matter. If the Department has any question concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Nick Heilman Security First Insurance Company 1001 Broadway Avenue Ormond Beach, Florida 32714 Nick.heilman@@SecurityFirstFlorida.com Telephone Number: (386) 868-1788
omella@stabinskilaw.com 11-14-2024 Addendum to Civil Remedy Notice Correction to Name of Individual Responsible for Violation: In the original Civil Remedy Notice filed, the names listed under "Name of Individual Responsible for Violation" were incorrect. The following names should be removed: Andres Marin Brittney Fedrick Rosemary Rivas Alexis Allen The correct individual responsible for the violations outlined in the Notice is Nick Heilman. This addendum serves to clarify the correct individual involved in the handling of Mr. Churchwell's claim.
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