Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     793478
Filing Accepted:  11/20/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
MARIUSZ KILN   First Name  
Street Address * 1831 E. 9TH ST.
City, State Zip * LYNN HAVEN, FL 32444
Email Address * MARIUSZKLIN6@GMAIL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   MARIUSZ KILN   First Name  
Policy # * SJ31105844 Claim #* SL24200108
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* MESSINGER First Name * MAX Initial
Street Address* 925 S. FEDERAL HWY
City, State Zip* BOCA RATON , FL 33432
Email Address * MMESSINGER@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):* DARIELLE THOMPSON
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
Unfair Trade Practice
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
* 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)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
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.
* 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.

The carrier was put on notice of the insured’s storm event claim. The carrier initially attempted to low-ball the claim and pay less than half of the amount of damages. Subsequently, the insured prepared a loss package in the amount of $277,714.07 needed to restore the property back to its pre-loss condition. Whereas, the carrier furnished a wrongful estimate and, having withheld the deductible, offered a deficient payment in the amount of $166,175.13 only, leaving a remainder in the amount of $111,538.94 to be paid in order to cure the breach, less any applicable policy deductible. The carrier retained Grindley Williams Engineering to even confirm there was storm damage, which it did. The insured has complied with all of the carrier’s requests to date and the carrier has still failed to treat this claim with good faith. This intentional delay with the claim has led to direct prejudice of the insured. About three hundred twenty days have passed since the original date of loss. The carrier has still refused to pay the fully covered amount owed under the policy. The carrier and Darielle Thompson on behalf of the carrier is aware of damage sustained by the insured’s property and has not taken any meaningful ensuing action. It is clear that the carrier is not treating the insured with good faith claims conduct; 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 $277,714.07, less any prior payments and less any 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. 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 Rebecca Barrett at (561)-892-9746 if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Max Messinger Attorney at Law
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
mthornton@slideinsurance.com 01-17-2025 Via E-mail & Posting on DFS Website Max Messinger, Esq. Kanner & Pintaluga 925 S Federal Hwy Boca Raton, FL 33432 mmessinger@kpattorney.com Complainant: Mariusz Klin Insured: Mariusz Klin Claim No: SL24200108 Policy No: SJ31105844 CRN Filing No.: 793478 Dear Max Messinger: Please allow this correspondence to serve as Slide Insurance Company’s (“Slide”)’s response to the Civil Remedy Notice (“CRN”) filed on behalf of Mariusz Klin (“Insured”). The CRN was accepted by the Department on November 20, 2024. Without waiving any objections to the sufficiency of the CRN, and specifically subject to a reservation of all rights and defenses herein, Slide denies all allegations that it violated Florida Statutes or other codes, regulations, and/or rules in this matter. The CRN contains a misspelling with regard to the Insured’s name, which is Mariusz Klin, not Kiln as stated in the CRN. Slide further challenges the validity of the CRN as it fails to identify the specific policy terms the Insured claims Slide failed to follow, nor do the allegations as stated give rise to any violation of Florida law or the insurance policy. See, e.g., Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So.3d 875, 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021); Demase v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company, 351 So.3d 136, 138-39 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022) (holding the trial court properly determined a civil remedy notice that failed to state with specificity the relevant policy language was legally insufficient). In fact, the CRN is devoid of any facts specific to the underlying claim, including the alleged cause of the loss, relevant dates, and damages claimed. Thus, the CRN is deficient and should be returned by the Department. CLAIM FACTS Slide issued a homeowners’ insurance policy to the Insured for property located at 1831 9th Street East, Lynn Haven, Florida, in effect for the period from March 28, 2023 to March 28, 2024, (the “Policy”). On January 9, 2024, the Insured filed a claim for damage to their screened pool enclosure. The date of loss was reported as January 9, 2024. Slide acknowledged receipt of the claim and assigned a licensed engineer and contractor with Grindley Williams Engineering, (“GW Engineering”), to inspect the property. At the inspection on January 31, 2024, GW Engineering met with the Insured’s Property Manager, Stephanie, as well as a representative from the Insured’s contractor Hightower Industries Construction. Although the claim was initially reported for tornado damage, the Insured’s Property Manager and contractor representative told GW Engineering that the claim was related to hail damage to the screen panels on the pool enclosure and metal roof, not a tornado. GW Engineering documented evidence of hail on the metal roof as well as detached and missing screen panels on the pool enclosure. No openings were observed in the roof or exterior of the dwelling. Per the Insured’s and / or their representatives’ representations that the damage was limited to the exterior of the property, an inspection was not completed inside the dwelling. Based on the investigation, including but not limited to GW Engineering’s estimate of repairs as determined by its on-site assessment, the Insured was advised in a letter dated May 1, 2024, that the claim was covered. Slide immediately issued payment to the Insured for replacement of the metal roofing system on the dwelling and repairs to the screened enclosure. A separate payment for statutory interest was also made to the Insured. An explanation of the coverage decision and itemized estimate of the covered damages was sent with the claim payment, in accordance with the Policy and Florida Statute. No further communication was received from the Insured or their representatives until the Insured’s public adjuster from DDavis & Associates Inc., (“Public Adjuster”), submitted a mold remediation report, mold test, and an estimate prepared by an unidentified individual at Legal Web, LLC. The Public Adjuster’s estimate claimed increased costs for replacement of the roof as well as repairs to multiple interior rooms, windows, and the exterior stucco never before reported as part of this loss. To date, Slide has not been provided access to the interior of the Insured’s property. As a result Slide has been prevented an opportunity to investigate material aspects of the Insured’s claims. As of the date of this response, Slide is pending the Insured’s compliance with its written requests for information in support of the Insured’s claims, access for inspection of the entire property, and an Examination Under Oath. Slide maintains that it has acted in accordance with the terms of the Policy and the law in its adjustment of the claim. The facts and circumstances set forth in the CRN are misleading, vague, and incomplete. The Insured has presented no evidence to support the allegations of claim delay, unsatisfactory settlement offer, or unfair trade practice. Rather, the facts show Slide promptly investigated the loss, made communications as necessary to adjust the claim, and issued payment based upon an expert assessment, in compliance with the Policy and Florida Statute. DENIAL OF ALL VIOLATIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTE The CRN asserts Slide violated §§ 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), Fla. Stats. Notwithstanding any challenges to the CRN’s legal sufficiency, and specifically subject to a reservation of all defenses and/or rights, Slide categorically denies all violations of Florida Statutes or any other codes, regulations, and/or rules in its handling of the subject loss. The underlying claim was adjusted in as thorough and expedient a manner as possible. Slide employed proper claims practices in the investigation including, but not limited to, a prompt inspection of the Insured’s property, retention of necessary experts to assess the reported damage, and timely communications with the Insured and/or their representatives. Following the adjustment of the claim, the Insured was advised in writing of the coverage decision and basis for the issued claim payment. Upon receipt of correspondence from the Insured via their Public Adjuster notifying Slide of claimed damage to areas and items not previously reported or investigated, Slide reopened the claim for further investigation. As of the date of this response, Slide is awaiting the Insured’s cooperation in the supplemental claim investigation. Thus, the violations asserted in the CRN are baseless and Slide asserts strict compliance with its statutory obligations. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the documented facts contradict all allegations that Slide has in any manner acted improperly or contrary to its contractual obligations to the Insured. In filing this response, Slide does not intend to waive any rights or defenses that it may have in law or the policy. Rather, Slide expressly reserves all such rights and defenses without exception or limitation. Should there be any questions or further inquiry with respect to this matter, please contact the undersigned at mthornton@slideinsurance.com. Sincerely, /s/ Marianne Thornton Marianne Thornton, 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