Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     793999
Filing Accepted:  11/25/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
KNOWLTON   First Name   KATE
Street Address * 9412 PALM ISLAND CIRCLE
City, State Zip * NORTH FORT MYERS, FL 33903
Email Address * JOSH@MATTEOGRAPHICS.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   KNOWLTON   First Name   KATE
Policy # * 5576596946 Claim #* 01000112302
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* KRAPF First Name * GRANT Initial W
Street Address* 2790 SUNSET POINT RD
City, State Zip* CLEARWATER , FL 33759
Email Address * GRANT@KRAPFLEGAL.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   FRONTLINE INSURANCE UNLIMITED COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10074
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* DENISE CARAKER, APRIL FRACZKOWSKI, CELINA EGERTON, AND ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL FROM, OR AGENT OF, FIRST PROTECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY D/B/A FRONTLINE INSURANCE, WHO WAS INVOLVED IN THE CLAIM.
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
Unfair Trade Practice
Other : Not treating the Insured with good faith claims conduct
Other : Looking for ways to deny full recovery to the Insured
Other : Looking for ways to delay full recovery to the Insured
Other : Failing to properly investigate the Insured's loss
Other : Failing to provide the Insured with the full benefits awarded under the contract of insurance in a t
Other : Not training, supervising, or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made
Other : Not adjusting claims and evaluating loss properly
Other : Shifting the burden of insuring the loss to the Insured
Other : Failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims
* Statutory provision(s) which the insurer allegedly violated.
 
624.155(1)(b)(1) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests.
626.9541(1)(i)(1) Attempting to settle claims on the basis of an application, when serving as a binder or intended to become a part of the policy, or any other material document which was altered without notice to, or knowledge or consent of, the insured.
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.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i) Failing to pay personal injury protection insurance claims within the time periods required by s. 627.736(4)(b).
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

627.70131(7)(a) Within 90 days after an insurer receives notice of an initial, reopened, or supplemental property insurance claim from a policyholder, the insurer shall pay or deny such claim or a portion of the claim unless the failure to pay is caused by factors beyond the control of the insurer which reasonably prevent such payment. The insurer shall provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the policyholder of the basis in the insurance policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for the payment, denial, or partial denial of a claim. If the insurer's claim payment is less than specified in any insurer's detailed estimate of the amount of the loss, the insurer must provide a reasonable explanation in writing of the difference to the policyholder. Any payment of an initial or supplemental claim or portion of such claim made 90 days after the insurer receives notice of the claim, or made more than 15 days after there are no longer factors beyond the control of the insurer which reasonably prevented such payment, whichever is later, bears interest at the rate set forth in s. 55.03. Interest begins to accrue from the date the insurer receives notice of the claim. The provisions of this subsection may not be waived, voided, or nullified by the terms of the insurance policy. If there is a right to prejudgment interest, the insured must select whether to receive prejudgment interest or interest under this subsection. Interest is payable when the claim or portion of the claim is paid. Failure to comply with this subsection constitutes a violation of this code. However, failure to comply with this subsection does not form the sole basis for a private cause of action. 627.70131 (d) Within 7 days after the insurer's assignment of an adjuster to the claim, the insurer must notify the policyholder that he or she may request a copy of any detailed estimate of the amount of the loss generated by an insurer's adjuster. After receiving such a request from the policyholder, the insurer must send any such detailed estimate to the policyholder within the later of 7 days after the insurer received the request or 7 days after the detailed estimate of the amount of the loss is completed. This paragraph does not require that an insurer create a detailed estimate of the amount of the loss if such estimate is not reasonably necessary as part of the claim investigation. Reference to specific policy language: The violations alleged are statutorily based and do not rely on any specific policy language. "It is an accepted principle of law that when parties contract upon a matter which is the subject of statutory regulation, the parties are presumed to have entered into their agreement with reference to such statute, which becomes a part of the contract, unless the contract discloses a contrary intention." Westside EKG Assocs. v. Found. Health, 932 So. 2d 214, 216 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), aff'd, 944 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 2006).
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Insurance (the "Insurer") has committed the following in handling the Insured's claim: 1) failing to act in due diligence and good faith to resolve claims; 2) placing the financial interest of Insurer before that of the Insured; 3) looking for ways to deny benefit payments and otherwise "low ball" or "stone wall" claims; 4) not adjusting the claims promptly and fairly; 5) not attempting in good faith to settle claims; 6) conducting inadequate investigations; 7) failing to employ policies and procedures to conduct adequate investigations; and 8) failing to render a claims determination within ninety (90) days. On or about September 28, 2022, while the subject policy was in full force and effect, the insured property suffered a loss caused by Hurricane Ian. The areas impacted include but are not limited to the foyer, hallways, kitchen, dining room, living room, garage, bathroom, master bedroom, master bathroom, roofing system, and exterior surfaces. The Insured timely submitted a claim to the Insurer for damages caused by Hurricane Ian and the ensuing damage therefrom. Given the scope and nature of the damage, the Insured retained a public adjuster. After assessing the damage and the true scope of repairs, the public adjuster prepared an estimate identifying $96,433.18 in covered damage to the dwelling. The foregoing estimate, photographs, and a letter of representation from the public adjuster were sent to the Insurer who thereafter assigned claim number 01000112302 to the loss and issued a letter, dated May 20, 2024, in which it requested extensive information from the Insured. After having been provided with the requested information, the Insurer reissued subsequent requests for information with which the Insured and their public adjuster complied. Despite the repeated requests and the Insured's compliance, the Insurer has placed obstacles to the Insured's ability to have the claim adjusted promptly to begin restoring the home by waiting more than ninety (90) days after receiving notice of the loss to make a claims determination. Under Fla. Stat. 627.70131(7)(a), "[w]ithin 90 days after an insurer receives notice of an initial, reopened, or supplemental property insurance claim from a policyholder, the insurer shall pay or deny such claim or a portion of the claim unless the failure to pay is caused by factors beyond the control of the insurer which reasonably prevent such payment." There were and are currently no factors outside of the Insurer's control. As the Insurer has failed to make a timely determination, it has violated this code. As such, in addition to the below requirements to cure this CRN, any payment made to the Insured must contain interest for the damage as a result of the loss from the date the Insurer received first notice of the loss. Upon receiving notice of the loss, the Insurer had the duty to provide the full benefits under the policy. This includes providing the Insured with a proper investigation and the funds necessary to return the home to its pre-loss condition. However, when the Insurer conducted its inspection of the insured property, the Insurer's adjuster failed to conduct a thorough and adequate investigation, or the adjuster intentionally ignored the damage observed and failed to make truthful and unbiased reports of the facts after investigating. As a result, the Insurer breached the policy by failing to fully indemnify the Insured for the covered loss. Additionally, Insurer shifted the burden and cost of investigating and insuring the loss onto the Insured. During their investigation, the insurer's adjuster did not use a moisture meter, despite the presence of interior water damage. A moisture meter can be purchased online from Amazon for around $40 before tax. The Insurer could purchase a moisture meter and assess thousands of properties with one meter. Instead, the Insurer would rather place its financial interests over those of the Insured by failing to provide the adjuster with the necessary tools to correctly inspect the loss. As a result of the inadequate investigation and surrounding circumstances it is apparent that the Insurer significantly underestimated the scope of the loss to the Insured's property. The Insurer and its adjuster have colluded to misrepresent the true scope of damages to the insured property and the true replacement costs of the damages. The conduct outlined above is done within the Insurer's routine course of the business. There may be further wrongful conduct which has not been made known to the Insured at this moment. Certain conduct or actions may be discovered throughout discovery or cannot be verified without a review of the Insurer's claim file and standards and procedures for the adjustment and investigation of claims. In short, the Insurer is not acting with due regard for the Insured's interests or safety. In Florida the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. The Insurer has breached this trust and its duty to the Insured. The Insurer and its agents conducted cursory and inadequate investigations and wrongfully delayed resolution of the subject claim by failing to provide the Insured with a coverage determination in the proper timeframe. Moreover, the Insurer has engaged in bad faith practices designed to delay claims and prevent the Insured from recovering what is rightfully owed under the subject policy of insurance. The Insurer's actions and inactions have continued to frustrate and delay the resolution of the Insured claim. The Insurer's actions amount to but are not limited to the following: 1. Claim delay 2. Not treating the Insured with good faith claims conduct 3. Looking for way to reduce recovery to the Insured 4. Looking for ways to deny recovery to the Insured 5. Not adjusting claims and evaluating loss properly, promptly and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to the Insured 6. Not training, supervising or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made, but rather placing the company's interests before the Insured's' interests 7. Placing the financial interest of the Insurer over that of the health and safety of the Insured 8. Shifting the burden of investigating onto the Insured 9. Conducting inadequate investigations 10. Failing to render a written claims determination to the Insured within 90 days pursuant to Florida Statute 627.70131 Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this civil remedy notice, the Insurer must: (1). Admit full coverage for the Insured's loss. (2). Tender full benefits owed to the Insured under the insurance contract. A copy of this form submitted to the FDFS has been sent via e-mail to the following parties providing them notice of the filing of the civil remedy notice. Please e-mail any response to this civil remedy notice to badfaith@krapflegal.com. Via E-mail: First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Insurance P. O. Box 958405 Lake Mary, FL 32795 info@flhi.com
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
mkranzler@chartwelllaw.com 12-09-2024 December 9, 2024 VIA E-MAIL: grant@krapflegal.com Katherine Knowlton and Joshua Lukitsch c/o Grant W Krapf 2790 Sunset Point Rd Clearwater, FL 33759 Re: Insurer: First Protective Insurance Company Insured: Katherine Knowlton and Joshua Lukitsch DFS Filing Number: 793999 Filing Accepted Date: November 25, 2024 Policy Number: 5576596946 Claim Number: 01000112302 To Whom it May Concern: This firm represents First Protective Insurance Company (hereinafter “Frontline”) in connection with a claim submitted by Kate Knowlton (hereinafter the “Insured”), following a purported hurricane loss said to have occurred on or about September 28, 2022, as reported to Frontline on or around May 7, 2024. This correspondence shall serve as a formal response by Frontline to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation (hereinafter “CRN”), filing number 793999, and associated with policy number 5576596946. Frontline denies each and every allegation brought forth in the CRN and denies any wrongdoing in the handling of this matter. Below, we include a detailed factual history of the claim handling and actions by Frontline which clearly reveals Frontline acted properly in responding to the claim and is in compliance with both its contractual and legal obligations. Frontline would further state that the Insured’s CRN is defective as it fails to comply with the strict governing requirements contained within Florida Statute Section 624.155. Namely, the statute requires that a CRN shall “state with specificity . . . [t]he facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.” Fla. Stat. § 624.155(3)(b)2. Under Florida law, a civil remedy notice must state the facts and circumstances that give rise to an alleged violation with such specificity sufficient to allow an insurer to cure any alleged violation within the 60-day statutory period. See Lane v. Westfield Insurance Company, 862 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). The Insured’s CRN is deficient as the limited self-serving facts and circumstances set forth therein are incomplete and misleading. Additionally, the CRN includes a blanket list of statutory provisions alleged to have been violated. The referenced statutes, however, do not appear to be pertinent to the subject claim, and the CRN fails to specify each statutes’ relative applicability. Further, the CRN does not contain facts addressing and supporting each of the alleged statutory violations against Frontline, but rather sets forth conclusory allegations of purported bad faith. For these reasons alone, the CRN is defective on its face. Furthermore, Frontline notes that this is the second CRN filed in this matter, the Insured’s counsel having previously filed one on behalf of the Insured’s co-insured, Joshua Lukitsch. This is notable because it is a pattern and practice of Mr. Lukitsch’s retained counsel to file individual CRNs separately, months apart, for each and every Insured, in a clear bad-faith effort to manufacture a basis for a bad faith lawsuit, by hoping that the carrier fails to respond to one of the duplicative CRNs. The Department of Financial Services should strongly consider issuing guidance barring this bad-faith behavior. In light of the incomplete, misleading, and/or false allegations set forth in the CRN, Frontline hereby provides the Department of Financial Services with the following facts of the claim that, in and of themselves, disprove all of the allegations brought forth in the CRN. Frontline hereby asserts that all actions taken in the handling of this claim were done so in good faith for the purpose of fair and timely disposition of this matter. CLAIM FACTS The Insured’s property is located at 9412 Palm Island Cir., North Fort Myers, FL 33903. Frontline issued a property insurance policy bearing policy number 5576596946 to the Insured and his wife, Katherine Knowlton, with effective dates of July 9, 2022 through July 9, 2023. This loss was first reported to Frontline on or about May 7, 2024, roughly 588 days after the alleged date of loss of September 28, 2022. The Insured claimed damage to his property as a result of Hurricane Ian. Frontline immediately acknowledged the claim and began its investigation. On May 24, 2024, Frontline’s representative took the recorded statement of the Insured, Mr. Lukitsch. At that time, Mr. Lukitsch stated that he first observed the alleged damages to his property potentially as far back as June of 2023, but chose not to make a claim at that time. He obtained estimates to replace his roof from licensed roofers at quotes of $18,400 and $20,000, because no roofer would simply perform a repair. He further acknowledged that the leaks are ongoing, and he has taken no steps to install a tarp or otherwise repair the damages to his roof to prevent continuing damage. A tarp was not subsequently installed on the roof of the subject property until roughly July of 2024, nearly two years after the alleged date of loss, during which period the Insureds claim leaks were continuous. An Independent Adjuster inspected the subject property that same day, May 24, 2024, at which time the Independent Adjuster noted that the roof was in overall poor condition for its age, as well as some attempted repairs to the skylight which caused damage to the surrounding shingles. On June 19, 2024, a licensed Professional Engineer inspected the subject property as well. Based upon his education, training, professional experience, and personal observation, the engineer concluded as follows: In our Professional Opinion, the conditions we observed at the Knowlton roof have been caused by routine, age-related wear and tear in an aging architectural shingle roof. None of the conditions we observed were caused by severe weather effects on or around September 28, 2022, the claimed Date of Loss. Similarly, the claimed water staining inside the home is not related to leaking through openings created on that date, and the photographs provided show that this damage predates this claim by at least 10 months. Water may have penetrated this roof during Hurricane Ian on or around September 28, 2022, but we found no storm-created openings that would indicate this leaking could have been caused by severe weather effects on that date. Any roof leaking on or around the claimed Date of Loss would be the result of age-related failure of the roof covering. Pictures captured on November 10, 2021, by a field adjuster for Frontline show further, more widespread and much darker moisture staining on the ceilings above the living room, dining room, kitchen and garage. Apparently some interior damage has been patched since those photos were taken. Additionally, replaced courses of shingles above claimed damage in the kitchen is further evidence of historic repair attempts to this roof. The claimed exterior damage to the garage door, gutter and fascia are minor and cosmetic in nature. We believe the gutter and fascia sections can be repaired or replaced. The Expected Useful Service Life of an architectural shingle roof in this part of Florida is typically between 15 and 20 years. This roof is around 14 years old, and was 12 years old on the claimed Date of Loss. The conditions we observed on this roof are not due to any one-time weather event, but are not unusual for aging roofs approaching the end of their Useful Service Life. We believe this roof will continue to become more of a maintenance burden until it is replaced. We found no storm-related damage on this roof, and we believe that life cycle replacement will be necessary because of routine wear and tear, not the effects of any single weather event. In summary, the roof at the Knowlton home was not damaged by severe-weather during Hurricane Ian on or around September 28, 2022, the reported Date of Loss for this claim. The conditions we observed have developed over the life of the roof. There are no storm created openings on this roof that could have caused or contributed to the claimed interior damage. On July 11, 2024, the Insureds both executed a Sworn Proof of Loss swearing under oath, with the possibility of third degree felony charges if such information was found to include any false, including, or misleading information, that their damages were in the total amount of $96,433.18 before application of their deductible. This valuation was apparently adopted from the estimate created by their Public Adjuster, Oakmont Public Adjusting. Notably, however, the Public Adjuster (who does not actually perform the service of roof replacement) quoted the full roof replacement at this property at a cost of $52,664.70, nearly three times the cost of the roof replacement quotes that the Insured had not yet already received, but which he had disclosed to Frontline. Accordingly, by signing that Sworn Proof of Loss, the Insureds made a false statement under oath that may reasonably constitute a material violation of their Policy obligations that voids the Policy in full. Frontline expressly reserves the right to make such a determination that the Insureds’ Policy is void due to this material false statement, which the Insureds reasonably knew to be false at the time that they executed their Sworn Proof of Loss. Notably, the Insureds had a prior claim for wind damage to the subject property, alleged to have occurred roughly two months after the Insureds purchased the property in July of 2020. In that matter as well, Frontline retained an engineer who inspected the subject property, who opined that this loss as well was the result of age-related deterioration to the property rather than any one-time loss event as claimed by the Insureds. Indeed, the Insureds claimed damage due to a hailstorm, but no such damages were noted. The prior claim’s photographs and engineering report were relied upon and cited by the Engineer who opined on this claim. Over the course of its investigation, Frontline requested that the Insureds provide certain supporting documentation in correspondences dated May 20, 2024, June 10, 2024, and August 7, 2024. Rather than comply with such requests, however, Mr. Lukitsch filed a CRN through his counsel. In light of the clear refusal to cooperate, Frontline ultimately denied the Insured’s claim in a correspondence dated September 27, 2024, and subsequently responded to Mr. Lukitsch’s CRN. As predicted, a second duplicative CRN has now been filed on behalf of Ms. Knowlton. In fact, betraying the utter bad-faith, duplicative nature of these filings, this second CRN continues to include an alleged statutory violation pertaining to Personal Injury Protection insurance, which is clearly not at issue here. The Insured’s counsel refuses to even vet these filings for accuracy before submission a second time to the Department of Financial Services, in a complete waste of the Department’s resources. ALLEGED REASONS FOR NOTICE Claim Delay: Frontline denies any claim of claim delay. Frontline promptly and thoroughly evaluated the Insured’s claim, including an in-person inspection of the property by an Independent Adjuster and a Professional Engineer, and multiple requests for additional substantiation which the Insured chose to ignore, preventing Frontline from finalizing its coverage decision. As outlined above, the facts of this claim set forth herein evidence expedient and timely administration of this claim and full and strict compliance with the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Frontline, and any allegation of delay is solely the fault of the Insureds and their representatives and/or agents. Unfair Trade Practice: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. The Insured submits no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. The handling and administration of this claim occurred with the utmost expediency and timeliness allowed by the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Frontline. At no time did Frontline, its agents, or its employees act improperly in the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. The facts show that Frontline acted promptly with respect to the investigation of the underlying claim. Frontline made all communications required to adjust this claim in a prompt and appropriate matter. Rather, the Insureds, by and through their counsel, have repeatedly chosen to ignore Frontline’s requests for substantiation and, even worse, submitted false claims under oath. As outlined above, the facts of this claim set forth herein evidence expedient and timely administration of this claim and full and strict compliance with the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Frontline. Not treating the insured with good faith claims conduct: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. The Insured submits no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. The handling and administration of this claim occurred with the utmost expediency and timeliness allowed by the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Frontline. At no time did Frontline, its agents, or its employees act improperly in the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. The facts show that Frontline acted promptly with respect to the investigation of the underlying claim. Frontline made all communications required to adjust this claim in a prompt and appropriate matter. As outlined above, the facts of this claim set forth herein evidence expedient and timely administration of this claim and full and strict compliance with the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Frontline. Looking for ways to deny full recovery to the Insured: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. The Insured submits no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. The handling and administration of this claim occurred with the utmost expediency and timeliness allowed by the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Frontline. At no time did Frontline, its agents, or its employees act improperly in the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. The facts show that Frontline acted promptly with respect to the investigation of the underlying claim. Frontline made all communications required to adjust this claim in a prompt and appropriate matter. As outlined above, the facts of this claim set forth herein evidence expedient and timely administration of this claim and full and strict compliance with the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Frontline. Looking for ways to delay full recovery to the Insured: Frontline denies any claim of claim delay. Frontline promptly and thoroughly evaluated the Insured’s claim, including an in-person inspection of the property by an Independent Adjuster and a Professional Engineer, and multiple requests for additional substantiation which the Insured chose to ignore, preventing Frontline from finalizing its coverage decision. As outlined above, the facts of this claim set forth herein evidence expedient and timely administration of this claim and full and strict compliance with the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Frontline, and any allegation of delay is solely the fault of the Insureds and their representatives and/or agents. Failing to properly investigate the Insured’s loss: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. The Insured submits no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. The handling and administration of this claim occurred with the utmost expediency and timeliness allowed by the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Frontline. At no time did Frontline, its agents, or its employees act improperly in the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. The facts show that Frontline acted promptly with respect to the investigation of the underlying claim. Frontline made all communications required to adjust this claim in a prompt and appropriate matter. Conversely, the Insured submitted a false claim under oath, and refused to cooperate with Frontline’s requests for additional substantiation for his claim. As outlined above, the facts of this claim set forth herein evidence expedient and timely administration of this claim and full and strict compliance with the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Frontline. Failing to provide the Insured with the full benefits awarded under the contract of insurance in a t [sic]: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. The Insured submits no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. The handling and administration of this claim occurred with the utmost expediency and timeliness allowed by the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Frontline. At no time did Frontline, its agents, or its employees act improperly in the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. The facts show that Frontline acted promptly with respect to the investigation of the underlying claim. Frontline made all communications required to adjust this claim in a prompt and appropriate matter. Conversely, the Insured submitted a false claim under oath, and refused to cooperate with Frontline’s requests for additional substantiation for his claim. As outlined above, the facts of this claim set forth herein evidence expedient and timely administration of this claim and full and strict compliance with the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Frontline. Not training, supervising, or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. The Insured submits no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. The handling and administration of this claim occurred with the utmost expediency and timeliness allowed by the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Frontline. At no time did Frontline, its agents, or its employees act improperly in the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. The facts show that Frontline acted promptly with respect to the investigation of the underlying claim. Frontline made all communications required to adjust this claim in a prompt and appropriate matter. As outlined above, the facts of this claim set forth herein evidence expedient and timely administration of this claim and full and strict compliance with the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Frontline. Not adjusting claims and evaluating loss properly: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. The Insured submits no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. The handling and administration of this claim occurred with the utmost expediency and timeliness allowed by the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Frontline. At no time did Frontline, its agents, or its employees act improperly in the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. The facts show that Frontline acted promptly with respect to the investigation of the underlying claim. Frontline made all communications required to adjust this claim in a prompt and appropriate matter. Frontline afforded coverage for the actual cash value of direct physical damages observed, and invited the Insureds to follow the legal and contractual processes for submitting a supplemental claim, a process which the Insureds chose to ignore. As outlined above, the facts of this claim set forth herein evidence expedient and timely administration of this claim and full and strict compliance with the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Frontline. Shifting the burden of insuring the loss to the Insured: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. The Insured submits no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. The handling and administration of this claim occurred with the utmost expediency and timeliness allowed by the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Frontline. At no time did Frontline, its agents, or its employees act improperly in the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. The facts show that Frontline acted promptly with respect to the investigation of the underlying claim. Frontline made all communications required to adjust this claim in a prompt and appropriate matter, and the Insured simply chose not to cooperate with Frontline’s requests for substantiation for his late-reported claim, where he has already made one materially false statement under oath. As outlined above, the facts of this claim set forth herein evidence expedient and timely administration of this claim and full and strict compliance with the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Frontline. Failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. The Insured submits no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. The handling and administration of this claim occurred with the utmost expediency and timeliness allowed by the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Frontline. At no time did Frontline, its agents, or its employees act improperly in the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. The facts show that Frontline acted promptly with respect to the investigation of the underlying claim. Frontline made all communications required to adjust this claim in a prompt and appropriate matter. As outlined above, the facts of this claim set forth herein evidence expedient and timely administration of this claim and full and strict compliance with the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Frontline. ALLEGED STATUTORY VIOLATIONS The Insured alleges five (5) statutory violations in the CRN, however, no specific facts or circumstances are provided to support these allegations. The CRN is simply a recitation of general, stock allegations of bad faith conduct, conclusory statements of facts not reasonably supported by evidence. Frontline denies each and every allegation of statutory violation individually as follows: 624.155(1)(b)(1): Denied. Frontline has not failed to attempt to settle this claim in good faith and has always acted fairly and honestly towards the Insured. As shown in the above factual summary, the conduct of Frontline following its receipt of the first notice of the loss has complied with all aspects of Florida law. Coverage for this loss was properly denied based upon the inspections of an Independent Adjuster and Engineer, as well as multiple requests for supporting documentation which the Insured chose to ignore. 626.9541(1)(i)(1): Denied. This allegation is without basis. The Insured submitted no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation, simply making conclusory allegations as to the some fantastical assumption as to underwriting that has no substantiation or merit. Frontline has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of claims at all times. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Denied. This allegation is without basis. The Insured submitted no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation, simply making conclusory allegations as to the Insured’s disagreement with Frontline’s coverage determination. Frontline has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of claims at all times. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c): Denied. This allegation is without basis. The Insured submitted no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation, simply making conclusory allegations as to the Insured’s disagreement with Frontline’s coverage determination. Frontline has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of claims at all times. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i): Denied. This allegation is without basis and wholly irrelevant to this dispute. This dispute is not one over Personal Injury Protection benefits. The inclusion of this allegation simply betrays the utterly formulaic, bad faith, fact-free approach in which their counsel engages in shotgun filings of template allegations with no consideration as to the merit of same. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE INSURANCE POLICY The Insured’s CRN does not reference a single Policy provision, simply stating that “[t]he violations alleged are statutorily based and do not rely on any specific Policy language.” Notwithstanding, Frontline denies violating any provision or duties set forth in the Policy or any statutory obligations, and further asserts compliance with the Policy and all of its provisions and endorsements. Frontline handled the Insured’s claim with diligence and at all times acted fairly in administration of this claim and treated its Insured with honesty and with due regard for her interests. All actions by Frontline were done in compliance with the Policy. The Insured further alleges certain statutory violations which are not reasonably applicable, inasmuch as any delays in the adjustment of this claim were wholly the fault of the Insured who chose not to cooperate with Frontline’s continued investigation. FRONTLINE DENIES ALL ALLEGATIONS IN THE CRN Frontline hereby denies any and all allegations of bad faith by the Insured, and states that it has, at all times material, handled and adjusted the Insured’s claim with the utmost good faith. Any and all allegations of bad faith contained within the CRN are expressly rejected by Frontline. As stated above, the CRN is simply a recitation of general allegations of bad faith conduct, along with a list of statutory violations that are not specifically alleged or described. The CRN is therefore non-compliant with Florida Statute Section 624.155(3), which requires that a civil remedy notice of insurer violation “state with specificity”, inter alia, the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation and the “specific” language of the subject insurance Policy that is relevant to any alleged violation(s). The Insured failed to provide any specific and/or accurate facts or circumstances giving rise to the alleged violations in the CRN, and instead alleges a litany of incomplete, misleading, and/or boilerplate allegations against Frontline as alleged acts of bad faith. There are not sufficient references in the CRN to any specific Policy language that is relevant to the allegations of bad faith. Failure to provide such specific reference to Policy language is direct and clear noncompliance with the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 624.155, and renders the CRN deficient on its face, as to form and substance. Accordingly, the CRN does not provide the contemplated and mandated notice of alleged bad faith that is required as a condition precedent to any civil claim for bad faith pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 624.155. For these reasons, the CRN is denied and rejected. Frontline further denies any and all other allegations not specifically addressed in this response related to the above-referenced Civil Remedy Notice. There has been no violation of the referenced statutory sections by Frontline. By responding to the Civil Remedy Notice filed by the Insured, Frontline neither waives nor abandons, but rather, expressly reserves any and all rights, claims and defenses it has or may have under the terms and conditions of the Policy and applicable Florida law. Herein, Frontline has attempted to fully and adequately respond to the allegations alleged in the CRN. Frontline urges the Department of Financial Services to use this CRN as a guidepost for areas where the CRN process can be improved, to bar certain bad-faith tactics as evidenced in this matter. Should the Florida Department of Financial Services have any questions or further inquiry with respect to this matter, please contact the undersigned. Again, Frontline reserves the right to deem the Insured’s Policy void dating back to the relevant Policy period due to the Insured’s clear and knowing violation of the Policy’s “Concealment or Fraud” provision. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Very Truly Yours, CHARTWELL LAW, LLP. ______________________________ Michael J. Kranzler, Esq. cc: Florida Department of Financial Services
mkranzler@chartwelllaw.com 12-02-2024 December 2, 2024 VIA E-MAIL: grant@krapflegal.com Douglas Brown c/o Grant W Krapf 2790 Sunset Point Rd Clearwater, FL 33759 Re: Insurer: First Protective Insurance Company Insured: Katherine Knowlton and Joshua Lukitsch DFS Filing Number: 793999 Filing Accepted Date: November 25, 2024 Policy Number: 5576596946 Claim Number: 01000112302 To Whom it May Concern: This firm represents First Protective Insurance Company (hereinafter “Frontline”) in connection with a claim submitted by Kate Knowlton (hereinafter the “Insured”), following a purported hurricane loss said to have occurred on or about September 28, 2022, as reported to Frontline on or around May 7, 2024. This correspondence shall serve as a formal response by Frontline to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation (hereinafter “CRN”), filing number 793999, and associated with policy number 5576596946. Frontline denies each and every allegation brought forth in the CRN and denies any wrongdoing in the handling of this matter. Below, we include a detailed factual history of the claim handling and actions by Frontline which clearly reveals Frontline acted properly in responding to the claim and is in compliance with both its contractual and legal obligations. Frontline would further state that the Insured’s CRN is defective as it fails to comply with the strict governing requirements contained within Florida Statute Section 624.155. Namely, the statute requires that a CRN shall “state with specificity . . . [t]he facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.” Fla. Stat. § 624.155(3)(b)2. Under Florida law, a civil remedy notice must state the facts and circumstances that give rise to an alleged violation with such specificity sufficient to allow an insurer to cure any alleged violation within the 60-day statutory period. See Lane v. Westfield Insurance Company, 862 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). The Insured’s CRN is deficient as the limited self-serving facts and circumstances set forth therein are incomplete and misleading. Additionally, the CRN includes a blanket list of statutory provisions alleged to have been violated. The referenced statutes, however, do not appear to be pertinent to the subject claim, and the CRN fails to specify each statutes’ relative applicability. Further, the CRN does not contain facts addressing and supporting each of the alleged statutory violations against Frontline, but rather sets forth conclusory allegations of purported bad faith. For these reasons alone, the CRN is defective on its face. Furthermore, Frontline notes that this is the second CRN filed in this matter, the Insured’s counsel having previously filed one on behalf of the Insured’s co-insured, Joshua Lukitsch. This is notable because it is a pattern and practice of Mr. Lukitsch’s retained counsel to file individual CRNs separately, months apart, for each and every Insured, in a clear bad-faith effort to manufacture a basis for a bad faith lawsuit, by hoping that the carrier fails to respond to one of the duplicative CRNs. The Department of Financial Services should strongly consider issuing guidance barring this bad-faith behavior. In light of the incomplete, misleading, and/or false allegations set forth in the CRN, Frontline hereby provides the Department of Financial Services with the following facts of the claim that, in and of themselves, disprove all of the allegations brought forth in the CRN. Frontline hereby asserts that all actions taken in the handling of this claim were done so in good faith for the purpose of fair and timely disposition of this matter. CLAIM FACTS The Insured’s property is located at 9412 Palm Island Cir., North Fort Myers, FL 33903. Frontline issued a property insurance policy bearing policy number 5576596946 to the Insured and his wife, Katherine Knowlton, with effective dates of July 9, 2022 through July 9, 2023. This loss was first reported to Frontline on or about May 7, 2024, roughly 588 days after the alleged date of loss of September 28, 2022. The Insured claimed damage to his property as a result of Hurricane Ian. Frontline immediately acknowledged the claim and began its investigation. On May 24, 2024, Frontline’s representative took the recorded statement of the Insured, Mr. Lukitsch. At that time, Mr. Lukitsch stated that he first observed the alleged damages to his property potentially as far back as June of 2023, but chose not to make a claim at that time. He obtained estimates to replace his roof from licensed roofers at quotes of $18,400 and $20,000, because no roofer would simply perform a repair. He further acknowledged that the leaks are ongoing, and he has taken no steps to install a tarp or otherwise repair the damages to his roof to prevent continuing damage. A tarp was not subsequently installed on the roof of the subject property until roughly July of 2024, nearly two years after the alleged date of loss, during which period the Insureds claim leaks were continuous. An Independent Adjuster inspected the subject property that same day, May 24, 2024, at which time the Independent Adjuster noted that the roof was in overall poor condition for its age, as well as some attempted repairs to the skylight which caused damage to the surrounding shingles. On June 19, 2024, a licensed Professional Engineer inspected the subject property as well. Based upon his education, training, professional experience, and personal observation, the engineer concluded as follows: In our Professional Opinion, the conditions we observed at the Knowlton roof have been caused by routine, age-related wear and tear in an aging architectural shingle roof. None of the conditions we observed were caused by severe weather effects on or around September 28, 2022, the claimed Date of Loss. Similarly, the claimed water staining inside the home is not related to leaking through openings created on that date, and the photographs provided show that this damage predates this claim by at least 10 months. Water may have penetrated this roof during Hurricane Ian on or around September 28, 2022, but we found no storm-created openings that would indicate this leaking could have been caused by severe weather effects on that date. Any roof leaking on or around the claimed Date of Loss would be the result of age-related failure of the roof covering. Pictures captured on November 10, 2021, by a field adjuster for Frontline show further, more widespread and much darker moisture staining on the ceilings above the living room, dining room, kitchen and garage. Apparently some interior damage has been patched since those photos were taken. Additionally, replaced courses of shingles above claimed damage in the kitchen is further evidence of historic repair attempts to this roof. The claimed exterior damage to the garage door, gutter and fascia are minor and cosmetic in nature. We believe the gutter and fascia sections can be repaired or replaced. The Expected Useful Service Life of an architectural shingle roof in this part of Florida is typically between 15 and 20 years. This roof is around 14 years old, and was 12 years old on the claimed Date of Loss. The conditions we observed on this roof are not due to any one-time weather event, but are not unusual for aging roofs approaching the end of their Useful Service Life. We believe this roof will continue to become more of a maintenance burden until it is replaced. We found no storm-related damage on this roof, and we believe that life cycle replacement will be necessary because of routine wear and tear, not the effects of any single weather event. In summary, the roof at the Knowlton home was not damaged by severe-weather during Hurricane Ian on or around September 28, 2022, the reported Date of Loss for this claim. The conditions we observed have developed over the life of the roof. There are no storm created openings on this roof that could have caused or contributed to the claimed interior damage. On July 11, 2024, the Insureds both executed a Sworn Proof of Loss swearing under oath, with the possibility of third degree felony charges if such information was found to include any false, including, or misleading information, that their damages were in the total amount of $96,433.18 before application of their deductible. This valuation was apparently adopted from the estimate created by their Public Adjuster, Oakmont Public Adjusting. Notably, however, the Public Adjuster (who does not actually perform the service of roof replacement) quoted the full roof replacement at this property at a cost of $52,664.70, nearly three times the cost of the roof replacement quotes that the Insured had not yet already received, but which he had disclosed to Frontline. Accordingly, by signing that Sworn Proof of Loss, the Insureds made a false statement under oath that may reasonably constitute a material violation of their Policy obligations that voids the Policy in full. Frontline expressly reserves the right to make such a determination that the Insureds’ Policy is void due to this material false statement, which the Insureds reasonably knew to be false at the time that they executed their Sworn Proof of Loss. Notably, the Insureds had a prior claim for wind damage to the subject property, alleged to have occurred roughly two months after the Insureds purchased the property in July of 2020. In that matter as well, Frontline retained an engineer who inspected the subject property, who opined that this loss as well was the result of age-related deterioration to the property rather than any one-time loss event as claimed by the Insureds. Indeed, the Insureds claimed damage due to a hailstorm, but no such damages were noted. The prior claim’s photographs and engineering report were relied upon and cited by the Engineer who opined on this claim. Over the course of its investigation, Frontline requested that the Insureds provide certain supporting documentation in correspondences dated May 20, 2024, June 10, 2024, and August 7, 2024. Rather than comply with such requests, however, Mr. Lukitsch filed a CRN through his counsel. In light of the clear refusal to cooperate, Frontline ultimately denied the Insured’s claim in a correspondence dated September 27, 2024, and subsequently responded to Mr. Lukitsch’s CRN. As predicted, a second duplicative CRN has now been filed on behalf of Ms. Knowlton. In fact, betraying the utter bad-faith, duplicative nature of these filings, this second CRN continues to include an alleged statutory violation pertaining to Personal Injury Protection insurance, which is clearly not at issue here. The Insured’s counsel refuses to even vet these filings for accuracy before submission a second time to the Department of Financial Services, in a complete waste of the Department’s resources. ALLEGED REASONS FOR NOTICE Claim Delay: Frontline denies any claim of claim delay. Frontline promptly and thoroughly evaluated the Insured’s claim, including an in-person inspection of the property by an Independent Adjuster and a Professional Engineer, and multiple requests for additional substantiation which the Insured chose to ignore, preventing Frontline from finalizing its coverage decision. As outlined above, the facts of this claim set forth herein evidence expedient and timely administration of this claim and full and strict compliance with the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Frontline, and any allegation of delay is solely the fault of the Insureds and their representatives and/or agents. Unfair Trade Practice: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. The Insured submits no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. The handling and administration of this claim occurred with the utmost expediency and timeliness allowed by the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Frontline. At no time did Frontline, its agents, or its employees act improperly in the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. The facts show that Frontline acted promptly with respect to the investigation of the underlying claim. Frontline made all communications required to adjust this claim in a prompt and appropriate matter. Rather, the Insureds, by and through their counsel, have repeatedly chosen to ignore Frontline’s requests for substantiation and, even worse, submitted false claims under oath. As outlined above, the facts of this claim set forth herein evidence expedient and timely administration of this claim and full and strict compliance with the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Frontline. Not treating the insured with good faith claims conduct: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. The Insured submits no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. The handling and administration of this claim occurred with the utmost expediency and timeliness allowed by the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Frontline. At no time did Frontline, its agents, or its employees act improperly in the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. The facts show that Frontline acted promptly with respect to the investigation of the underlying claim. Frontline made all communications required to adjust this claim in a prompt and appropriate matter. As outlined above, the facts of this claim set forth herein evidence expedient and timely administration of this claim and full and strict compliance with the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Frontline. Looking for ways to deny full recovery to the Insured: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. The Insured submits no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. The handling and administration of this claim occurred with the utmost expediency and timeliness allowed by the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Frontline. At no time did Frontline, its agents, or its employees act improperly in the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. The facts show that Frontline acted promptly with respect to the investigation of the underlying claim. Frontline made all communications required to adjust this claim in a prompt and appropriate matter. As outlined above, the facts of this claim set forth herein evidence expedient and timely administration of this claim and full and strict compliance with the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Frontline. Looking for ways to delay full recovery to the Insured: Frontline denies any claim of claim delay. Frontline promptly and thoroughly evaluated the Insured’s claim, including an in-person inspection of the property by an Independent Adjuster and a Professional Engineer, and multiple requests for additional substantiation which the Insured chose to ignore, preventing Frontline from finalizing its coverage decision. As outlined above, the facts of this claim set forth herein evidence expedient and timely administration of this claim and full and strict compliance with the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Frontline, and any allegation of delay is solely the fault of the Insureds and their representatives and/or agents. Failing to properly investigate the Insured’s loss: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. The Insured submits no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. The handling and administration of this claim occurred with the utmost expediency and timeliness allowed by the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Frontline. At no time did Frontline, its agents, or its employees act improperly in the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. The facts show that Frontline acted promptly with respect to the investigation of the underlying claim. Frontline made all communications required to adjust this claim in a prompt and appropriate matter. Conversely, the Insured submitted a false claim under oath, and refused to cooperate with Frontline’s requests for additional substantiation for his claim. As outlined above, the facts of this claim set forth herein evidence expedient and timely administration of this claim and full and strict compliance with the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Frontline. Failing to provide the Insured with the full benefits awarded under the contract of insurance in a t [sic]: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. The Insured submits no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. The handling and administration of this claim occurred with the utmost expediency and timeliness allowed by the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Frontline. At no time did Frontline, its agents, or its employees act improperly in the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. The facts show that Frontline acted promptly with respect to the investigation of the underlying claim. Frontline made all communications required to adjust this claim in a prompt and appropriate matter. Conversely, the Insured submitted a false claim under oath, and refused to cooperate with Frontline’s requests for additional substantiation for his claim. As outlined above, the facts of this claim set forth herein evidence expedient and timely administration of this claim and full and strict compliance with the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Frontline. Not training, supervising, or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. The Insured submits no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. The handling and administration of this claim occurred with the utmost expediency and timeliness allowed by the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Frontline. At no time did Frontline, its agents, or its employees act improperly in the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. The facts show that Frontline acted promptly with respect to the investigation of the underlying claim. Frontline made all communications required to adjust this claim in a prompt and appropriate matter. As outlined above, the facts of this claim set forth herein evidence expedient and timely administration of this claim and full and strict compliance with the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Frontline. Not adjusting claims and evaluating loss properly: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. The Insured submits no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. The handling and administration of this claim occurred with the utmost expediency and timeliness allowed by the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Frontline. At no time did Frontline, its agents, or its employees act improperly in the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. The facts show that Frontline acted promptly with respect to the investigation of the underlying claim. Frontline made all communications required to adjust this claim in a prompt and appropriate matter. Frontline afforded coverage for the actual cash value of direct physical damages observed, and invited the Insureds to follow the legal and contractual processes for submitting a supplemental claim, a process which the Insureds chose to ignore. As outlined above, the facts of this claim set forth herein evidence expedient and timely administration of this claim and full and strict compliance with the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Frontline. Shifting the burden of insuring the loss to the Insured: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. The Insured submits no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. The handling and administration of this claim occurred with the utmost expediency and timeliness allowed by the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Frontline. At no time did Frontline, its agents, or its employees act improperly in the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. The facts show that Frontline acted promptly with respect to the investigation of the underlying claim. Frontline made all communications required to adjust this claim in a prompt and appropriate matter, and the Insured simply chose not to cooperate with Frontline’s requests for substantiation for his late-reported claim, where he has already made one materially false statement under oath. As outlined above, the facts of this claim set forth herein evidence expedient and timely administration of this claim and full and strict compliance with the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Frontline. Failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. The Insured submits no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. The handling and administration of this claim occurred with the utmost expediency and timeliness allowed by the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Frontline. At no time did Frontline, its agents, or its employees act improperly in the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. The facts show that Frontline acted promptly with respect to the investigation of the underlying claim. Frontline made all communications required to adjust this claim in a prompt and appropriate matter. As outlined above, the facts of this claim set forth herein evidence expedient and timely administration of this claim and full and strict compliance with the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Frontline. ALLEGED STATUTORY VIOLATIONS The Insured alleges five (5) statutory violations in the CRN, however, no specific facts or circumstances are provided to support these allegations. The CRN is simply a recitation of general, stock allegations of bad faith conduct, conclusory statements of facts not reasonably supported by evidence. Frontline denies each and every allegation of statutory violation individually as follows: 624.155(1)(b)(1): Denied. Frontline has not failed to attempt to settle this claim in good faith and has always acted fairly and honestly towards the Insured. As shown in the above factual summary, the conduct of Frontline following its receipt of the first notice of the loss has complied with all aspects of Florida law. Coverage for this loss was properly denied based upon the inspections of an Independent Adjuster and Engineer, as well as multiple requests for supporting documentation which the Insured chose to ignore. 626.9541(1)(i)(1): Denied. This allegation is without basis. The Insured submitted no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation, simply making conclusory allegations as to the some fantastical assumption as to underwriting that has no substantiation or merit. Frontline has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of claims at all times. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Denied. This allegation is without basis. The Insured submitted no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation, simply making conclusory allegations as to the Insured’s disagreement with Frontline’s coverage determination. Frontline has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of claims at all times. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c): Denied. This allegation is without basis. The Insured submitted no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation, simply making conclusory allegations as to the Insured’s disagreement with Frontline’s coverage determination. Frontline has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of claims at all times. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i): Denied. This allegation is without basis and wholly irrelevant to this dispute. This dispute is not one over Personal Injury Protection benefits. The inclusion of this allegation simply betrays the utterly formulaic, bad faith, fact-free approach in which their counsel engages in shotgun filings of template allegations with no consideration as to the merit of same. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE INSURANCE POLICY The Insured’s CRN does not reference a single Policy provision, simply stating that “[t]he violations alleged are statutorily based and do not rely on any specific Policy language.” Notwithstanding, Frontline denies violating any provision or duties set forth in the Policy or any statutory obligations, and further asserts compliance with the Policy and all of its provisions and endorsements. Frontline handled the Insured’s claim with diligence and at all times acted fairly in administration of this claim and treated its Insured with honesty and with due regard for her interests. All actions by Frontline were done in compliance with the Policy. The Insured further alleges certain statutory violations which are not reasonably applicable, inasmuch as any delays in the adjustment of this claim were wholly the fault of the Insured who chose not to cooperate with Frontline’s continued investigation. FRONTLINE DENIES ALL ALLEGATIONS IN THE CRN Frontline hereby denies any and all allegations of bad faith by the Insured, and states that it has, at all times material, handled and adjusted the Insured’s claim with the utmost good faith. Any and all allegations of bad faith contained within the CRN are expressly rejected by Frontline. As stated above, the CRN is simply a recitation of general allegations of bad faith conduct, along with a list of statutory violations that are not specifically alleged or described. The CRN is therefore non-compliant with Florida Statute Section 624.155(3), which requires that a civil remedy notice of insurer violation “state with specificity”, inter alia, the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation and the “specific” language of the subject insurance Policy that is relevant to any alleged violation(s). The Insured failed to provide any specific and/or accurate facts or circumstances giving rise to the alleged violations in the CRN, and instead alleges a litany of incomplete, misleading, and/or boilerplate allegations against Frontline as alleged acts of bad faith. There are not sufficient references in the CRN to any specific Policy language that is relevant to the allegations of bad faith. Failure to provide such specific reference to Policy language is direct and clear noncompliance with the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 624.155, and renders the CRN deficient on its face, as to form and substance. Accordingly, the CRN does not provide the contemplated and mandated notice of alleged bad faith that is required as a condition precedent to any civil claim for bad faith pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 624.155. For these reasons, the CRN is denied and rejected. Frontline further denies any and all other allegations not specifically addressed in this response related to the above-referenced Civil Remedy Notice. There has been no violation of the referenced statutory sections by Frontline. By responding to the Civil Remedy Notice filed by the Insured, Frontline neither waives nor abandons, but rather, expressly reserves any and all rights, claims and defenses it has or may have under the terms and conditions of the Policy and applicable Florida law. Herein, Frontline has attempted to fully and adequately respond to the allegations alleged in the CRN. Frontline urges the Department of Financial Services to use this CRN as a guidepost for areas where the CRN process can be improved, to bar certain bad-faith tactics as evidenced in this matter. Should the Florida Department of Financial Services have any questions or further inquiry with respect to this matter, please contact the undersigned. Again, Frontline reserves the right to deem the Insured’s Policy void dating back to the relevant Policy period due to the Insured’s clear and knowing violation of the Policy’s “Concealment or Fraud” provision. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Very Truly Yours, CHARTWELL LAW, LLP. ______________________________ Michael J. Kranzler, Esq. cc: Florida Department of Financial Services
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