Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     793069
Filing Accepted:  11/19/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
UNDERWAGER   First Name   DOUGLAS AND ALICIA
Street Address * 3972 SUNSET LAKE DRIVE
City, State Zip * LAKELAND, FL 33810
Email Address * WITHHELD
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   UNDERWAGER   First Name   DOUGLAS AND ALICIA
Policy # * 4192684392 Claim #* 01000113953
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* GUTIERREZ First Name * DANIEL Initial
Street Address* 924 DELANEY AVENUE
City, State Zip* ORLANDO , FLORIDA 32806
Email Address * SERVICE@DGPALAW.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   FIRST PROTECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10897
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* ANA M. ALVARADO
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
Claim Denial
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)(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.
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)(g) Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

The carrier has failed to properly adjust and pay the claim pursuant to the Section I – Conditions, Loss Settlement provision and the Section I – Conditions, Loss Payment provision.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

On or about June 26, 2024, the home of Alicia and Douglas Underwager (hereinafter referred to the “Insureds”) was damaged by a storm. Specifically, lightning caused damage to the exterior of the home and interior damages ensued. The Insureds reported these damages to their homeowners’ insurance company, Frontline Insurance (hereinafter referred to as “Insurer”). The Insurer responded to the claim and inspected the damages. Additionally, the Insurer retained an engineer to inspect the property. The engineer confirmed that brown tree branches and damaged lightning fixtures are considered collateral damage from lightning striking the property. However, despite this acknowledgement the engineer did not find storm or lightning damages to the roof. The insurer acknowledged minimal coverage of $1,390.85 after application of the deductible. The Insureds believed the damages to much more extensive than what the carrier acknowledged. Therefore, they retained an attorney. Additionally, a contractor on behalf of the Insureds inspected the property and prepared an estimate of damages for repairs to lightning and storm related damages. The contractor’s estimate included replacement of the roof and interior repairs and totaled $163,440.69 RCV and $160,633.39 ACV. It is clear that the carrier is not treating the Insureds with good faith claims conduct by failing to pay a claim clearly owed, not adjusting the claim and evaluating the loss properly, failing to promptly and fairly provide full and prompt indemnity to the Insureds, failing to provide a reasonable explanation in writing of the basis in the insurance policy in relation to the facts for the denial of the claim, and failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims by its adjusters. This Insurer is placing the company’s interests before the Insureds’ interests when a reasonable carrier in a similar position would have provided full coverage. In particular, it is a business practice of the Insurer to severely lowball tile roof damage claims with their initial claim adjustment with the intent of effecting settlement of such claims on less favorable terms than those provided by the policy. 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 Insured’s 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 $160,633.39 ACV (after application of the deductible and reduction for prior payment) 2.) Pay the statutory interest on the amount of unpaid damages from the date the loss was reported to the date payment is finally made. A copy of this form has been submitted to the FDFS and has been printed out and mailed to the following parties providing them notice of the filing of the Civil Remedy Notice: First Protective Insurance Company DBA Frontline Insurance 500 International Parkway Lake Mary, Florida 32746 Certified Return Receipt #9589 0710 5270 1579 4213 47
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
bkelley@wallenkelley.com 01-17-2025 January 17, 2025 Florida Department of Financial Services Consumer Assistance/Civil Remedy Section Larson Bldg., 200 E. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0322 Re: Complainant: Douglas and Alicia Underwager Address: 3972 Sunset Lake Drive, Lakeland, FL 33810 Email: service@dgpalaw.com Insured: Douglas and Alicia Underwager Policy #: 419268392 Claim: 01000113953 Attorney: Daniel Gutierrez Address: 924 Delaney Ave, Orlando, FL 32806 DOI File #: 793069 Date of Acceptance: November 19, 2024 To Whom It May Concern: Please allow this to serve as the response of First Protective Insurance Company ("Frontline") to the Civil Remedy Notice filed by the Complainants, Douglas and Alicia Underwager. Frontline's response is specifically in regard to Claim 01000113953 which is related to a claim for the Insureds' property located at 3972 Sunset Lake Drive, Lakeland, FL 33810 which was insured by Frontline under Policy #419268392 with the effective dates of that Policy being August 6, 2023 through August 6, 2023 and was in effect on the alleged date of loss, June 25, 2024. Statement of Facts This matter arises from an alleged wind and hail damage claim at the Insureds’ Lakeland, Florida residence. For the convenience of the reader, I have broken down the Statement of Facts that will detail Frontline’s handling of the file. 1. Claim: 01000113953 The instant claim was reported to Frontline on June 26, 2024 as an alleged result of lightning and storm damage with a date of loss of June 25, 2024. After receipt of the claim, Frontline assigned a claim number, 01000113953, and sent an acknowledgment letter to the Insureds. In addition, Frontline provided a Homeowners Bill of Rights to inform them of their rights under the Policy. Frontline also sent correspondence requesting an executed sworn proof of loss in an effort to ascertain the amount of damages being claimed and a third letter informing the Insured of his right to mediation for the claim. The acknowledge letter stated: “This communication is intended to confirm receipt of the above-captioned claim, filed under your Frontline insurance policy. Your claim will be handled by Frontline’s claim team, who will contact you to discuss the claims process, initiate an investigation and arrange for an inspection of the loss, as needed. As required by your policy conditions, please take the necessary steps to protect covered property from further damage. Additionally, please photograph, document, and save all receipts for any emergency or temporary repairs. Please also retain for our inspection all damaged property. Please be advised that in order to adequately investigate your claim, Frontline is requesting you complete, sign, date, notarize and return to Frontline the enclosed Proof of Loss and Claim for Damaged Property forms within sixty (60) days from the date of this letter. Frontline may also require you and/or any others to submit to an Examination Under Oath to discuss the circumstances of the claim(s). These requests are made pursuant to the policy conditions outlined in SECTION I – CONDITIONS … Duties After Loss., which we encourage you to carefully review in your Frontline policy of insurance.” Additionally, Frontline called the Insureds for a “first contact” call. There, the Insured stated a lightning strike hit the home causing damage. The Insured’s basis for their assessment of the damage was the fact that he is selling the home, and one day prior, there was an inspection of the roof not showing the current damage. However, during that call the Insured confirmed there was no electronic damage to the property. The call ended with the plan for an inspection to occur in order to verify and assess the damage. Thereafter, Frontline retained the services of a licensed field adjuster, Paul Murphy, of Tracker Claims Services, to perform an inspection of the Insureds’ property. This inspection took place on June 29, 2024. During that inspection, the field adjuster took photographs of the property, noted the alleged damages, and spoke to the Insureds about their claim. He subsequently prepared a report which contained his photographs and findings and provided it to Frontline. As questions remained about the claim, on July 2, 2024, Frontline sent the Insureds a Reservation of Rights letter which stated as follows: “We received your claim on June 26, 2024, for roof damage caused by lightning with a reported date of loss of June 25, 2024. We are issuing this reservation of rights letter to you because there is a question as to whether Frontline is obligated to indemnify you under the policy for the reported loss. Frontline will evaluate every claim which is reported to us and make payment for those losses which are covered under your policy number 4192684392, with effective dates of August 6, 2023 to August 6, 2024; however, we must inform you that based on our preliminary evaluation, we have identified issues that may restrict, limit or exclude coverage, and we will be continuing our evaluation under a Reservation of Rights. Your policy, HOMEOWNERS 3 – SPECIAL FORM HO 00 03 05 11 as modified by SPECIAL PROVISIONS – FLORIDA FIM 00 23 11 21, states in relevant part: SECTION I – CONDITIONS C. Duties After Loss is deleted and replaced by the following: C. Duties After Loss. An “assignment agreement” does not change the obligations to perform the duties required under this Policy. In case of a loss to covered prperty, you must see thst the following are done. These duties must be performed either by you, and “insured” skeeking coverage, or a representative of either: b. To the degree reasonably possible, retain the damaged property and any photographs of the damaged property; and Allow us to inspect, subject to the paragraph above, all damaged property prior to its removal from the "residence premises" and make copies of the photographs. e. Protect the property from further damage. The following must be performed: (1) Take reasonable emergency measures that are necessary to protect the covered property from further damage, as provided under Additional Coverage 2. A reasonable emergency measure under 5.a. above may include a permanent repair when necessary to protect the covered property from further damage or to prevent unwanted entry to the property. To the degree reasonably possible, the damaged property must be retained for us to inspect. (2) Keep an accurate record of repair expenses. To the degree reasonably possible, take pictures prior to repairs commencing. f. Cooperate with us in the investigation of a claim. h. As often as we reasonably require: (1) Show us the damaged property and the cause of loss and the condition it was in at the time of loss, if possible, except as to any repairs performed under SECTION I PROPERTY COVERAGES, Additional Coverages, 2. Reasonable Emergency Measures; (2) Provide us with records and documents we request and permit us to make copies; (3) You and any and all “insureds;” and Any member, officer, director, partner, or similar representative of the association, corporation, or other entity, if you are the association, corporation, or other entity who is an “insured,” must: (a) Submit to examination under oath and recorded statements at the location insured or other reasonable location designated by us, while not in the presence of each other or any other “insured.” For the reasons set forth above, and for any other good and valid reasons which may become known during our evaluation of this claim, you are notified that any action taken by Frontline or its authorized representatives to evaluate the cause of loss, determine the amount of loss or damage, or attempt to adjust any claim arising out of the alleged loss shall not waive any of the terms or conditions of the policy of insurance described above. Frontline does not intend by this letter to waive any policy defenses in addition to those stated above, but specifically reserves its right to assert such additional policy defenses at any time. As outlined in our letter, we request that you provide the following documents and information that are material to Frontline’s evaluation of your claim: • Home Inspection and Sellers’ Disclosure: Provide the pre-purchase home inspection report and seller’s disclosure pertaining to your 2021 purchase of the insured location. You may provide the requested information through the web portal at www.frontlineinsurance.com (Main Menu > File A Claim > Upload documents to an existing claim). Should you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. I can be reached at (877) 744-5224. If I am not available when you call, please leave me a detailed message, and I will return your call as soon as possible.” After a review of these materials submitted by the Insureds, Frontline determined that it would be necessary to send an engineer to perform an inspection to verify the cause and origin of the damages to the property. As a result, they retained the services of Donan Engineering, a licensed professional engineering firm. On July 17, 2024, Frontline called the Insureds to alert them that an engineer was going to inspect the house. On July 22, 2024, Frontline sent another letter to the Insureds, again reserving their rights which once more advised, “We received your claim on June 26, 2024, for roof damage due to a lightning strike with a reported date of loss of June 25, 2024. Frontline has retained the services of a forensic engineer to inspect the property as part of our investigation into the cause and origin of the claimed damage. We are issuing this reservation of rights letter to you because there is a question as to whether Frontline is obligated to indemnify you under the policy for the reported loss. Frontline will evaluate every claim which is reported to us and make payment for those losses which are covered under your policy number 4192684392, with effective dates of August 6, 2023 to August 6, 2024; however, we must inform you that based on our preliminary evaluation, we have identified issues that may restrict, limit or exclude coverage, and we will be continuing our evaluation under a Reservation of Rights…” Frontline also called and advised the Insureds of Frontline’s retainment of Donan Engineering Firm to inspect the home. On July 30, 2024, Alexis Rosado, P.E., of Donan Engineering inspected the Insureds’ property in the presence of Mr. Underwager. During that inspection she also took photographs of the property, noted the status of the property, and spoke to the Insured about damages. After performing additional steps of inquiry she completed and submitted a report to Frontline which contained her findings and conclusions which noted: • The weather research indicates a lightning stroke within 0.4 miles of the property. The reported damaged lighting fixtures and the brown tree branches can be considered collateral damage from lightning striking this property. • A lightning strike can displace tree branches, and consequently, these will fall, as evidenced by the cracked G-H hip tile below the southeast quadrant trees. • The cracked G-H hip tile is caused by fallen debris after the lightning strike. • The damaged roof tile does not reach or exceed the 25 percent of the roof covering, it can be spot-replaced, and complete replacement of any given roof slope or roof area is not warranted. • The recorded winds near the property are not of a magnitude that would be expected to damage a competent tile roof. • The collateral indicators provide evidence that the storm winds at this site were insufficient to damage an otherwise competent tile roof. • No tiles are missing or displaced in a manner consistent with wind uplift damage to tile roofs. • The presence of tile pieces adjacent to their parent tiles is not consistent with damage from a wind event, which would disperse the broken pieces. • The condition of tiles cracked in place is the result of foot traffic and/or restrained thermal/moisture expansion and contraction of the roofing materials. • Various tiles are downwardly displaced (slipped) due to the forces of gravity and as a result of inadequate fastening or age-related deterioration of the mortar. Wind did not cause the tiles to slip. On August 27, 2024, Frontline called Insured to report on the findings after the Engineer inspection. A follow up letter to the call was sent the next day, August 28, 2024, that contained policy language, highlighted the engineer’s conclusions, and stated: “This letter follows our conversation on August 27, 2024, when we discussed the results of our evaluation and the policy provisions which apply to your claim. Frontline evaluated the claim you reported on June 26, 2024, for lighting damage to your roof. As part of that evaluation, Frontline inspected the insured location on June 29, 2024. The inspection revealed cracked tiles on the front slope, ridge tiles were missing and cracked on the extension slope. Foam insulation in the ridge hole that was sealed to prevent further damage. The bird-stop is bent. In an effort to determine the cause and origin, Frontline retained an engineer to render an independent opinion. The inspection noted the following: • The reported damaged lightning fixtures and the brown tree branches can be considered collateral damage from lightning striking this property. • The cracked G-H hip tile is caused by fallen debris after the lightning strike. • The damaged roof tile does not reach or exceed the 25 percent of the roof covering, it can be spot-replaced, and complete replacement of any given roof slope or roof area is not warranted. • The recorded winds near the property are not of a magnitude that would be expected to damage a competent roof. • No tiles are missing or displaced in a manner consistent with wind uplift damage to tile roofs. • The presence of tile pieces adjacent to their parent tile is not consistent with damage from a wind event, which would disperse the broken pieces. • The condition of the tiles cracked in place is the result of foot traffic and/or restrained thermal/moisture expansion and contraction of the roofing materials. • Various tiles are downwardly displaced (slipped) due to the forces of gravity and as a result of inadequate fastening or age-related deterioration of the mortar. Wind did not cause the tiles to slip. Based upon Frontline’s current evaluation, as well as the information you have provided to date, enclosed is the estimate of the covered damage providing a breakdown of your claim. Please note a payment has been issued in the amount of $1,390.85 which includes the reimbursement for the tarp. Once you have selected a contractor to complete the covered repairs to your home, if the estimate for repairs exceeds the enclosed estimate and/or if additional damages are discovered you must immediately inform us by producing any updates to documents including revised descriptions of the loss, scope of loss, estimates, or other supporting documentation and allow an inspection before repairs are made. Failure to do so may jeopardize your ability to recover for the full amount of the additional damages. Frontline reserves the right to inspect the property and/or requires additional information prior to the release of any funds. Additionally, we observed wear, tear, expansion, contraction, and foot traffic. Pursuant to our discussion on August 27, 2024, this damage is unrelated to the subject claim, I explained that if you would like us to evaluate the damage, a separate claim would need to be filed immediately as required by SECTION I - CONDITIONS of your policy. Failure to do so and to comply with the Duties After Loss may jeopardize coverage. If you do decide to make a claim for this additional damage, you may file it online at frontlineinsurance.com > File a Claim or by calling us at (877) 744- 5224.” Following the coverage decision, Frontline made a number of phone calls and exchanged numerous emails with the Insureds’ roofing contactor. On September 17, 2024, Frontline sent additional correspondence to the Insureds which noted that, “This letter follows our conversation with Florida Certified Roofers on September 17, 2024, when we discussed the results of our evaluation and the policy provisions which apply to your claim. Frontline evaluated the claim you reported on June 26, 2024, for lighting damage to your roof. As part of that evaluation, Frontline inspected the insured location on June 29, 2024. The inspection revealed cracked tiles on the front slope, ridge tiles were missing and cracked on the extension slope. Foam insulation in the ridge hole that was sealed to prevent further damage. The bird-stop is bent. In an effort to determine the cause and origin of the claimed damage we enlisted the services of an engineer. The engineer’s report noted the roof damage as the result of the lightning event does not exceed the 25% of the roof covering therefore a repair is warranted and issued to you. We have evaluated your claim for the replacement of your roof as there were concerns that the roof could not be repaired as the tiles are discontinued. Please see the attached report provided by Precision Claim Solutions that confirms the company, Westlake has the same tile available to complete necessary repairs, therefore a complete roof replacement is not warranted. Your Homeowners Policy does not provide coverage for wear, tear, expansion, contraction, and foot traffic. This damage is unrelated to the claim as such, based upon the terms and conditions of your insurance policy, Frontline must respectfully deny your request for a roof replacement… … While coverage has been partially denied, Frontline will evaluate and consider any new information that you submit in support of your claim. Please feel free to submit new information for our consideration. Frontline does not intend by this letter to waive any policy defenses in addition to those stated above, but specifically reserves its right to assert additional policy defenses at any time. Our partial denial of your claim does not relieve you of any duty to maintain your property, and you should move forward with any repairs necessary to protect the property from further damage. Should you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. EST. I can be reached at 321-249-1331. If I am not available when you call, please leave me a detailed message, and I will return your call as soon as possible.” On September 19, 2024, Frontline made the payments to Insureds in the amount of $1,950.00 for tree invoices. Thereafter, the filed remained closed for approximately two months. This Civil Remedy Notice was filed November 19, 2024. 2. Nature of the Complainants' Civil Remedy Complaint In the Civil Remedy Notice, the Complainants allege Frontline violated: Section 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. Section 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. Section 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. Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a)—Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b)—Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d)—Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information. Section 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. Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g)— Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim. However, in the body of their Civil Remedy Notice, the Complainants go further and state that Frontline, “…is not treating the Insureds with good faith claims conduct by failing to pay a claim clearly owed, not adjusting the claim and evaluating the loss properly, failing to promptly and fairly provide full and prompt indemnity to the Insureds, failing to provide a reasonable explanation in writing of the basis in the insurance policy in relation to the facts for the denial of the claim, and failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims by its adjusters. This Insurer is placing the company’s interests before the Insureds’ interests when a reasonable carrier in a similar position would have provided full coverage. In particular, it is a business practice of the Insurer to severely lowball tile roof damage claims with their initial claim adjustment with the intent of effecting settlement of such claims on less favorable terms than those provided by the policy.” These accusations are unfair given the nature of the facts and the damage surrounding this claim. Here, the claim was processed, the Insureds’ property was inspected on multiple occasions, a coverage decision was made, and payment was sent to Insureds. Moreover, the Complainants’ cure of a payment of $160,633.39 plus interest to fully replace the roof is an improper cure because, as stated above, a full roof replacement is not covered or warranted. Less than 25% of the roof was damaged, so a spot-replacement method is sufficient, as recommended by expert professional engineers and adjusters. Further, some of the roof damage was not caused by lightning and the storm on the date of loss. As stated above with quoted language from the policy, normal wear and tear damage is not covered by the policy. To the extent the damage was caused by lightning and the storm, Frontline not only opened coverage, but paid it in full. In regards the statutory violations, Frontline would respond as follows: • Section 624.155(1)(b)(1)—Frontline requested documentation, inspected the property on numerous occasions, made numerous phone calls with the Insureds and their representatives, reviewed materials provided and afforded coverage (and made payment) with all information in its possession. It fully attempted to resolve this claim in good faith. • Section 624.155(1)(b)(3)—Frontline requested documentation, inspected the property on numerous occasions, made numerous phone calls with the Insureds and their representatives, reviewed materials provided and afforded coverage (and made payment) with all information in its possession. It fully attempted to resolve this claim in good faith. • Section 626.9541(1)(i)(2)—No material misrepresentations have been made to the Insureds or any other person for this claim. • Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a)—Frontline adopted and implemented proper standards for the proper investigation of claims. • Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b)— No material misrepresentations have been made to the Insureds or any other person for this claim. • Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d)—This claim was not denied and Frontline undertook a lengthy investitive process of based upon available information. • Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f)— Frontline did not deny this claim and sent multiple coverage decision letters explaining its position to the Insureds. • Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g)— Frontline sent numerous letters requesting information to the Insureds and repeatedly advised them that additional documents would be reviewed. It should also be noted that the Complainants’ Civil Remedy Notice is deficient in the following aspects: • Section 624.155(3)(b)(4), Florida Statutes, requires the Civil Remedy Notice 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. The Complainant is 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. Thus, the Purported Notice is invalid for noncompliance with Section 624.155(3)(b)(4), Florida Statutes. Conclusion Frontline also asserts that there was no misconduct in the adjustment of the Insureds’ claim. As can be seen from the above, Frontline has credible evidence to support its belief that the claim was properly adjusted. The claim was processed, the Insureds’ property was inspected on multiple occasions, and Frontline adjusted and paid the covered damages. Furthermore, Frontline believes that the Complainants' position is untenable due to the facts surrounding the claim. Frontline has spent considerable time and resources in the investigation of this matter and believes that its efforts were made in good faith and based on the information available at the time of the claim. In turn, this Civil Remedy Notice unfairly characterizes the facts of the Insureds’ claim and unfairly paints Frontline in a negative light. The Insureds have been paid for damages covered under the policy and there is no need to replace the entire roof. Sincerely, Lee Alhanti, Esq. On Behalf of First Protective Insurance Company
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