Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     794081
Filing Accepted:  11/25/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
WELBORN   First Name   JENNIFER
Street Address * 412 WYNDFIELD CIRCLE
City, State Zip * FLEMING ISLAND, FL 32003
Email Address * C/O RNIPPS@WOOLSEYMORCOM.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   WELBORN   First Name   JENNIFER
Policy # * SJ3-0365256 Claim #* SL24201121
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* NIPPS First Name * ROBERT Initial L
Street Address* 203 FORT WADE RD., SUITE 260
City, State Zip* PONTE VEDRA , FLORIDA 32081
Email Address * RNIPPS@WOOLSEYMORCOM.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):* NATE SMELTZER (FL LICENSE #W666489)
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
Claim Denial
Unfair Trade Practice
Other : Unfair Claim Settlement Practices
Other : Unreasonable Investigation Failure to act on claim
Other : Failure to conduct a reasonable investigation based on available information
Other : Failure to maintain proper complaint handling procedures
Other : Misrepresenting the insurance policy provisions to the insured
Other : Misrepresenting Florida statutory provisions to the insured
Other : Misrepresenting facts to the insured
Other : Failure to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims
Other : Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information
* 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)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e) Failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and, as to partial coverage, the dollar amount or extent of coverage, or failing to provide a written statement that the claim is being investigated, upon the written request of the insured within 30 days after proof-of-loss statements have been completed.
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.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h) Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary.
626.9541(1)(i)(4) Failing to pay undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed under first-party property insurance policies within 60 days after an insurer receives notice of a residential property insurance claim, determines the amounts of partial or full benefits, and agrees to coverage, unless payment of the undisputed benefits is prevented by factors beyond the control of the insurer as defined in s. 627.70131(5).
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Your policy: Your insurance policy is divided into two premiums: one for damage caused by hurricane force winds (hurricane-wind) and one for all other damage (all perils), such as fire. SECTION I – PERILS INSURED AGAINST In Form HO 00 03: A. Coverage A – Dwelling And Coverage B – Other Structures. Paragraph 2.c.(4) is replaced by the following: (4) Vandalism or malicious mischief, and any ensuing loss caused by any intentional and wrongful act committed in the course of the vandalism or malicious mischief, if the dwelling has been vacant for more than 30 consecutive days immediately before the loss. A dwelling being constructed is not considered vacant. Paragraph 2.c.(5) is replaced by the following: (5) Constant or repeated seepage or leakage of water or the presence or condensation of humidity, moisture or vapor, over a period of weeks, months or years unless: Such seepage or leakage of water or the presence or condensation of humidity, moisture or vapor and the resulting damage; (a) Is unknown to all “insureds”; and (b) Is hidden within the walls or ceilings or beneath the floors or above the ceilings of a structure. Paragraph 2.c.(6)(c) is replaced by the following: (c) Smog, rust or other corrosion; The following paragraph 2.c.(7) is added: (7) Rain, snow, sleet, sand or dust to the interior of a building unless a covered peril first damages the building causing an opening in a roof or wall and the rain, snow or sleet, sand or dust enters through this opening. B. Coverage C – Personal Property. 12. Accidental Discharge Or Overflow Of Water Or Steam. Paragraph b.(4) is replaced by the following: (4) Caused by constant or repeated seepage or leakage of water or the presence or condensation of humidity, moisture or vapor, over a period of weeks, months or years unless: Such seepage or leakage of water or the presence or condensation of humidity, moisture or vapor and the resulting damage; (a) Is unknown to all “insureds”; and (b) Is hidden within the walls or ceilings or beneath the floors or above the ceilings of a structure. In Forms HO 00 04 and HO 00 06: Paragraph 8. is replaced with the following: 8. This peril does not include loss to property on the “residence premises,” and any ensuing loss caused by any intentional and wrongful act committed in the course of the vandalism or malicious mischief, if the dwelling has been vacant for more than 30 consecutive days immediately before the loss. A dwelling being constructed is not considered vacant. 12. Accidental Discharge Or Overflow Of Water Or Steam. Paragraph b.(5) in form HO 00 06 (b.(4) in form HO 00 04) is replaced by the following: (5) To a building caused by constant or repeated seepage or leakage of water or the presence or condensation of humidity, moisture or vapor, over a period of weeks, months or years unless: Such seepage or leakage of water or the presence or condensation of humidity, moisture or vapor and the resulting damage; (a) Is unknown to all “insureds”; and (b) Is hidden within the walls or ceilings or beneath the floors or above the ceilings of a structure. **** Also refer to: Coverage A provision, coverage B provision, coverage C provision, coverage D provision, all additional coverages provisions, all coverages provided by endorsement or rider, the declarations page, loss payment or settlement provision, duties in event of loss policy provision, all terms and conditions of section I of the insurance policy, the insurance policy definitions section, the insurance policy‘s exclusion of coverage provisions, all insurance policy provisions that provide coverage to the insured property, and all policy provisions.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Additional Statutes Violated: 624.155(1)(a)(1) – violating 626.9541(1)(i) 626.9541(1)(a)(1) -- misrepresenting the terms of an insurance policy. 626.9541(1)(i) -- unfair claim settlement practices. Facts of the case: Slide Insurance Company (“SIC”) has committed the following in handling the insured’s claim: 1) failure to pay benefits owed; 2) failure to act in due diligence and good faith to resolve claims; 3) placing the financial interest of the insurer before that of the policy holder and claimant; 4) failure to properly train, evaluate, and manage adjusters retained to represent the policies and procedures of SIC; 5) looking for ways to delay benefit payments and otherwise “low ball” or “stone wall” claims; 6) looking for ways to deny the insured’s claim; 7) looking for ways to reduce recovery to the insured; 8) failure to perform a reasonable investigation; 9) misrepresenting Florida statutory provisions to its insured; 10) misrepresenting insurance policy provisions to the insured; 11) SIC has failed and refused to acknowledge coverage and promptly pay the benefits due and owed to the insured; 12) the reasons for this may be attributed to improper training, supervision, and/or motivation of outside adjusters and claims supervisors to promptly and fairly adjust and pay full benefits available to the insured. The insurer may have failed to adopt proper standards of Investigation and adjustment of losses or is otherwise not implementing those standards because a proper investigation and full and prompt payment for the loss is not occurring. In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. SIC has breached this duty by its adjustment of the insured’s claim of loss. SIC has failed to create and implement adequate guidelines for proper investigation to evaluate claims handling and for training and supervision of employees resulting in violations as set forth above. SIC has failed and/or refused to thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigate and evaluate the insured’s insurance claim for damages. Despite the insured’s timely notification to SIC of the insurance claim, SIC has failed and refused to acknowledge the covered loss and pay all amounts due and owing to the insured under the policy of insurance. SIC has failed to promptly settle the insured’s insurance claim, when the obligation to settle the claim had become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance, in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage. Despite the insured’s pleas otherwise, SIC has failed and refused to acknowledge its obligation to tender all insurance proceed monies due and owing the insured or assist the insured in mitigation of the damages. In exchange for a premium paid by the insured, SIC issued the subject insurance policy which provided coverage for the insured property from May 5, 2023 to May 5, 2024, for “sudden and accidental direct loss to property described in COVERAGE A - Dwelling and COVERAGE B- Other Structures only if that loss is a physical loss to covered property.” As such, the subject all-risk Policy contains coverage for all direct physical losses to the insured property unless the loss is specifically and unambiguously excluded from coverage by the Policy. On or about February 22, 2024, the insured property suffered a fire loss, and the insured immediately submitted a claim to SIC for property damage. Hence, the insured suffered a substantial loss regarding the real property and continue to suffer such loss. Having suffered such substantial damage, the insured promptly notified SIC of the loss in an effort to mitigate the current damage and prevent the exacerbation of any additional losses. The desired result did not follow. SIC since being presented the Insured’s claim has misrepresented policy provisions to avoid paying the insured what they are owed under the policy. Ultimately, SIC has failed and refused to properly settle the insured’s claim in good faith. The insured has requested that SIC conduct an investigation, admit coverage, and pay damages; SIC has failed and refused to do so. In short, SIC has failed to handle its insured’s claim in good faith in violation of Fla. Stat. 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3), and 626.9541(1)(i). Based upon SIC’s investigation and property inspection SIC has denied the claim and in fact "closed" the claim. In regard to insurance contracts, a specific refusal to pay a claim is the breach which triggers the cause of action. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d 885, 892 (Fla. 2003); Donovan v. SIC Fire and Cas. Co., 574 So. 2d 285, 286 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1991) (finding that a breach of contract takes place at the moment the insurance company refuses to pay a claim). Therefore, SIC breached the Policy. Moreover, SIC’s argued exclusions and/or limitations to coverage are devoid of anti-concurrent causation language. Thus, “coverage may exist where an insured risk constitutes a concurrent cause of the loss even when it is not the prime or efficient cause.” Sebo v. Am. Home Assurance Co., Inc., 208 So. 3d 694, 699 (Fla. 2016). In addition, under the Policy, any ensuing loss to property not excluded or excepted in this policy is covered. Hence, there are a myriad of coverages under the Policy that would provide coverage for the loss. Nevertheless, SIC failed and refused to acknowledge the covered loss and pay all amounts due and owing for the loss. Therefore, SIC breached the Policy. Questioning the propriety of SIC’s coverage denial, and given the extensive nature of the physical damage, the insured retained a loss consultant, River City Claims (RCC), to perform an investigation and damage evaluation in accordance with industry standards and Florida law. Based on its investigation, RCC determined that a fire did in fact cause damage throughout the insured property. Moreover, RCC determined that at least $421,749.45 worth of repairs would be required to return the property to its pre-loss condition as a result of the fire loss, consisting of exterior and interior damage as well damage to the contents and personal property. Nevertheless, SIC failed and refused to acknowledge the covered loss and pay all amounts due and owing under the Policy. Therefore, SIC breached the Policy. Thereafter, the insured sent correspondence to SIC enclosing the RCC report outlining the cause, scope, and cost of the loss along with other supporting documents and requested SIC to reconsider its coverage denial. Nevertheless, SIC failed to acknowledge the covered loss and pay all amounts due and owing under the Policy. Therefore, SIC breached the Policy. The insured has submitted to SIC an appropriate Sworn Statement in Proof of Loss, the supporting RCC report outlining the cause, scope, and cost of the loss along with the Contents & Additional Dwelling ledger and other supporting documents, the Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation, and requested SIC to reconsider its coverage denial. To date, SIC has failed and refused to acknowledge the covered loss and pay all amounts due and owing under the Policy. Therefore, SIC breached the Policy. As such, SIC’S coverage denial is a blatant misrepresentation of the available coverages under the Policy in direct violation of Fla. Stats. 626.9541(1)(a)(1), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(a)(1), and 626.9541(1)(i)(2) and is nothing more than a mere pretext to wrongfully deny and delay this claim. As a result, SIC has materially misrepresented the coverages under the subject policy to the insured for the purpose and with the intent of effecting settlement of the insured’s claim on less favorable terms than those provided in, and contemplated by, the subject policy in direct violation of Fla. Stat. § 626.9541(1)(i)(2). Further, SIC is in violation of Florida statutes §§ 626.9541(1)(a)(1), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), and 626.9541(1)(a)(1) by misrepresenting pertinent facts and insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue; and also in violation of Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) by denying the insured’s claim without conducting a reasonable investigation based upon available information. In summary, the insured’s loss is clearly covered by the terms of the policy of insurance with SIC. However, SIC chose to deny coverage for the insured’s loss. Despite clear evidence that the damage was covered and caused by a covered peril, the claim was denied. To date, SIC continues to deny the insured and its insured full indemnity for the claim. While SIC refuses to honor this claim, a jury in Clay County will likely do what SIC has refused; exercise the benefit of doubt in favor of the insured in finding full coverage for this loss. Indeed, the insured will undoubtedly meet the burden of proof at trial, under the SIC all-risk policy, to show that, while SIC provided insurance coverage, damage occurred to the insured property. See Jones v. Federated Nat'l Ins. Co., 235 So. 3d 936, 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). With the data presented within SIC’s investigation and RCC’s investigation, SIC’s burden to demonstrate by the greater weight of the evidence that all the physical damage to the insured property was caused solely by excluded perils under the policy and not in combination with a covered peril has not and cannot be met. See Sebo v. Am. Home Assurance Co., Inc., 208 So. 3d 694 (Fla. 2016). Despite clear indicators of covered damage, SIC nevertheless inexplicably denied the insured’s claim. As of today, SIC has failed and refused to inform the insured of his/her rights under the policy of insurance and Florida statutes, has improperly delayed the insured’s claim, has wrongfully denied the insured’s claim, and has failed and refused to adequately indemnify the insured for the loss and defiantly continues to do so. Indeed, from the time of receiving the claim, SIC has purposely and maliciously delayed in adjusting the subject claim in an effort to either avoid paying the claim altogether or, at the very least, avoid paying the full extent of the loss. Notably, under Florida law, “[t]he filing of a lawsuit does not extinguish the insurer’s obligations under the policy to adjust and pay the claim.” Tristar Lodging, Inc. V. Arch Specialty Ins. Co., 434 F. Supp. 2d 1286, 1289 (M.D. Fla. 2006). To date, the insured has made a good faith effort to comply with all of the requirements under the subject policy of insurance, and it is only fair that SIC do the same. Yet, that is not the case. The insured feels that the insured property is a valuable asset, and, by continuously delaying the proper handling of this claim, SIC is putting the insured property at risk. As a responsible property owner, the insured purchased insurance to protect the property, paid all of the premiums, and has kept up to date with the responsibilities under the policy. Yet, when the insured needed to rely on the insurance because of this unforeseen loss, SIC turned its back and delayed and wrongfully denied coverage that the insured is rightfully owed. Ultimately, SIC has failed and refused to properly investigate the loss. The insured has requested that SIC admit coverage and pay damages, SIC has failed and refused to do so, and continues to refuse to fully indemnify the insured for the loss and pay the amounts necessary to properly repair the insured’s property, despite knowing it is required to do so. In short, SIC has failed to handle its insured’s claim in good faith. In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust; SIC has breached this duty by its insufficient adjustment of the insured’s claim. SIC has failed to create and implement adequate guidelines for proper investigation to evaluate claims handling and for training and supervision of employees resulting in statutory violations set forth above. SIC has failed and/or refused to thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigate and evaluate the insured’s insurance claim for damages. Florida statute § 624.02 defines insurance as a contract whereby one undertakes to indemnify another or pay or allow a specified amount or a determinable benefit upon determinable contingencies. Inherent is the fact that payment must be made timely and promptly so that the insured may mitigate their damages to put them back into the position they were prior to loss as quickly as possible. SIC breached this duty. The actions taken by SIC in the handling / adjustment of the insured’s claim were willful, wanton, and with complete disregard for the rights of its insured and occur with such a frequency as to indicate a general business practice and are in violation of Fla. Stat. 624.155 and 626.9541. SIC’S actions amount to but are not limited to the following: 1. Claim delay 2. Wrongful claim denial 3. Unfair trade practice 4. Unfair claim settlement practices 5. Unreasonable investigation 6. Failure to act on claim 7. Failure to conduct a reasonable investigation based on available information 8. Failure to maintain proper complaint handling procedures 9. Misrepresenting the insurance policy provisions to the insured 10. Misrepresenting Florida statutory provisions to the insured 11. Misrepresenting facts to the insured 12. Failure to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims 13. Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information 14. Failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and, as to partial coverage, the dollar amount or extent of coverage, or failing to provide a written statement that the claim is being investigated, upon the written request of the insured within 30 days after proof-of-loss statements have been completed. 15. 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. 16. Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim. 17. Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary. 18. Failing to pay undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed under first-party property insurance policies within 90 days after an insurer receives notice of a residential property insurance claim, determines the amounts of partial or full benefits, and agrees to coverage, unless payment of the undisputed benefits is prevented by an act of God, prevented by the impossibility of performance, or due to actions by the insured or claimant that constitute fraud, lack of cooperation, or intentional misrepresentation regarding the claim for which benefits are owed. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this civil remedy notice, SIC must: (1): Admit full coverage for the insured’s loss; and (2): Tender all insurance monies due and owing to the insured for the loss under the subject Policy. A copy of this form submitted to the FDFS has been emailed and/or uploaded and also printed out and mailed to the following parties providing them notice of the filing of this civil remedy notice: Slide Insurance Company 4421 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 200 Tampa, FL 33607 nsmeltzer@slideinsurance.com
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
mnixon@slideinsurance.com 01-12-2025 Via E-mail & Posting on DFS Website Robert L. Nipps, Esq. Woolsey Morcom, PLLC 203 Fort Wade Rd., Suite 105 Ponte Vedra, FL 32081 rnipps@woolseymorcom.com Complainant: Jennifer Welborn Insured: Jennifer Welborn Claim No: SL24201121 Policy No: SJ30365256 Date of loss: 02/22/24 CRN Filing No.: 794081 Dear Mr. Nipps: Please allow this correspondence to serve as Slide Insurance Company’s (“Slide”)’s response to the Civil Remedy Notice (“CRN”) that was filed on behalf of Jennifer Welborn (“Insured”). Herein, we include a brief factual history of the underlying claim and actions by Slide which reveals it has acted properly in responding to the underlying claim and in compliance with its contractual and legal obligations. Slide denies each and every allegation brought forth in the CRN and denies any wrongdoing in the handling of the underlying claim. Additionally, Slide denies violating any Florida Statute or Administrative Code as set forth more specifically herein. Moreover, Slide denies violating any provisions or duties set forth in the applicable policy of insurance. Slide further states that the facts and circumstances that are set forth in the CRN, while incomplete and misleading, do not give rise to any violation of any statute or policy provision referenced in the Notice. Furthermore, Slide challenges the validity of the CRN for lacking specificity. See, e.g., Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So.3d 875, 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (affirming dismissal for civil remedy notice’s failure to either strictly, or substantially, comply with statutory specificity requirement); Demase v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company, 351 So.3d 136, 138-39 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022) (holding that the trial court properly determined that a CRN that failed to state with specificity the relevant policy language was legally insufficient). Finally, the CRN is improper pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 624.1551. CLAIM FACTS The underlying claim was reported as a claim related to a fire with a DOL of February 22, 2024, at the real property located at 412 Wynfield Cir, Fleming Island, FL 32003. Slide asserts the CRN is invalid and improper as the address to the insured property is not 412 Wyndfield Circle, Fleming Island, FL 32003. Nonetheless, Slide promptly adjusted the loss, including but not limited to, sending Independent Adjuster Taylor Strunk to inspect the insured property on February 23, 2024, and Professional Engineer on Erick Effendy of Grindley Williams Engineering to reinspect the insured property on March 1, 2024. As a result of Slide’s investigation and evaluation of the underlying claim, on or about April 4, 2024, Slide issued its determination letter(s) and payment(s) of approximately $303,718.06. Thus, Slide maintains that it has acted in accordance with the terms of the subject insurance policy, and the law, and has acted in good faith towards the Insured. Slide denies that it violated any statutes or committed the acts asserted in the CRN. Slide neither waives nor is estopped from asserting any and all rights that it may have in law or under the terms of the policy. Slide expressly reserves all such rights without exception or limitation. REASONS FOR THE NOTICE The CRN alleges multiple reasons for the filing of the Notice. However, no specific facts or circumstances are provided to support these allegations. Notwithstanding, Slide denies each and every allegation individually as follows: 1. Claim Delay: Slide denies any delay in the claims handling process of the underlying loss as is evident from the facts outlined above. Slide promptly acknowledged the claim and timely initiated its investigation of the loss including inspection(s) of the subject property. Slide acted in accordance with its duties and obligations pursuant to the policy of insurance and responded appropriately to information and documentation that was provided. Thus, Slide asserts that this allegation is without basis and therefore denied. 2. Claim Denial: This allegation is without basis and therefore denied. Slide acted in accordance with its duties and obligations pursuant to the policy of insurance as well as Florida law. The underlying claim was not denied. Instead, the Insured was issued payment(s) based on the investigation and evaluation of the claim. Accordingly, Slide’s actions are adequately supported by law and fact. Thus, this allegation is without basis and therefore denied. 3. Unfair Trade Practice: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is wholly denied. The Insured has submitted no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. At no time did Slide, its agents, or its employees delay the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. The facts show that Slide acted promptly with respect to the investigation of the underlying claim and made communications as necessary to adjust the claim in a prompt and appropriate manner. Information necessary and relevant to the proceeding of the claim was communicated to the Insured or their representatives in an appropriate and timely manner. 4. Unfair Claim Settlement Practices: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is wholly denied. The Insured has submitted no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. At no time did Slide, its agents, or its employees delay the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. The facts show that Slide acted promptly with respect to the investigation of the underlying claim and made communications as necessary to adjust the claim in a prompt and appropriate manner. Information necessary and relevant to the proceeding of the claim was communicated to the Insured or their representatives in an appropriate and timely manner. 5. Unreasonable Investigation Failure to Act on Claim: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is wholly denied. Slide has been forthcoming and truthful regarding the pertinent claim facts and/or insurance policy provisions relating to the reported loss. Slide’s correspondences and communications to the Insured and their representatives proves this fact. Accordingly, Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Additionally, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. The handling and administration of this claim occurred with the expediency and timeliness allowed by the statutory requirements imposed upon Slide. At no time did Slide, its agents, or its employees delay the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. The facts show that Slide acted promptly with respect to the investigation of the underlying claim and made communications as necessary to adjust the claim in a prompt and appropriate manner. Information necessary and relevant to the proceeding of the claim, were communicated to the Insured or their representatives in an appropriate manner. Thus, this allegation is without basis and therefore denied. 6. Failure to Conduct a Reasonable Investigation Based on Available Information: Denied. Slide has not failed to conduct a reasonable investigation based on available information. On the contrary, the underlying claim was investigated and adjusted in as thorough and expedient a manner as possible.?Following the investigation and evaluation of the underlying claim, Slide tendered payment(s) to the Insured. Additionally, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. Thus, this allegation is without basis and therefore denied. 7. Failure to Maintain Proper Compliant Handling Procedures: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is wholly denied. The insured has submitted no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. The handling and administration of this claim occurred with the expediency and timeliness allowed by the statutory requirements imposed upon Slide. At no time did Slide, its agents, or its employees delay the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. The facts show that Slide acted promptly with respect to the investigation of the underlying claim and made communications as necessary to adjust the claim in a prompt and appropriate manner. Information necessary and relevant to the proceeding of the claim were communicated to the Insured or their representatives in an appropriate manner. Thus, this allegation is without basis and therefore denied. 8. Misrepresenting the Insurance Policy Provisions to the Insured: Slide has not misrepresented the insurance policy provisions to the Insured or any other person having an interest in the proceeds payable under the subject policy for insurance. Additionally, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. Thus, this allegation is without merit and therefore denied. 9. Misrepresenting Florida Statutory Provisions to the Insured: Slide has not misrepresented Florida statutory provisions to the Insured or any other person having an interest in the proceeds payable under the subject policy for insurance. Additionally, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. Thus, this allegation is without merit and therefore denied. 10. Misrepresenting Facts to the Insured: Slide has not misrepresented facts to the Insured or any other person having an interest in the proceeds payable under the subject policy for insurance. Additionally, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. Thus, this allegation is without merit and therefore denied. 11. Failure to Acknowledge and Act Promptly Upon Communications with Respect to Claims: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is wholly denied. The Insured has submitted no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. The handling and administration of this claim occurred with the expediency and timeliness allowed by the statutory requirements imposed upon Slide. At no time did Slide, its agents, or its employees delay the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. The facts show that Slide acted promptly with respect to the investigation of the underlying claim and made communications as necessary to adjust the claim in a prompt and appropriate manner. Information necessary and relevant to the proceeding of the claim were communicated to the Insured or their representatives in an appropriate manner. Thus, this allegation is without basis and therefore denied. 12. Denying Claims Without Conducting Reasonable Investigations Based Upon Available Information: This allegation is without basis and therefore denied. The underlying claim was not denied. Instead, the Insured was issued payment(s) based on the investigation and evaluation of the claim. As such, Slide acted in accordance with its duties and obligations pursuant to the policy of insurance as well as Florida law. Additionally, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. Accordingly, Slide’s actions are adequately supported by law and fact. Thus, this allegation is without basis and therefore denied. ALLEGED STATUTORY VIOLATIONS The CRN alleges multiple statutory violations. However, no specific facts or circumstances are provided to support these allegations. Notwithstanding, Slide denies each and every allegation of statutory violation individually as follows: 1. 624.155(1)(b)(1): Denied. The underlying claim was investigated and adjusted in as thorough and expedient a manner as possible. Following the investigation and evaluation of the underlying claim, the Insured was issued payment(s). Moreover, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 2. 624.155(1)(b)(3): Denied. Slide has not failed to promptly settle the underlying claim. The underlying claim was investigated and adjusted in as thorough and expedient a manner as possible.?Following the investigation and evaluation of the underlying claim, the Insured was issued payment(s). Accordingly, Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it.? Moreover, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 3. 626.9541(1)(i)(2): Denied. Slide has not made any material misrepresentations to the Insured or any other person having an interest in the proceeds payable under the subject policy for insurance. The underlying claim has been investigated and adjusted in as thorough and expedient a manner as possible. Slide routinely communicated relevant information to the Insured and/or their representatives. Thus, any such allegation is without merit and unsupported by the facts of the underlying claim. Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Finally, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 4. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Denied. This allegation is without basis. Slide has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of claims at all times during the investigation of the subject matter. The aforementioned facts demonstrate that Slide employed proper and customary claims practices in the investigation and adjustment of this claim including, but not limited to, inspection(s) of the insured property and timely communications with the Insured and their representatives. Accordingly, Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Finally, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 5. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b): Denied.? This allegation is without basis.? Slide has been forthcoming and truthful regarding the pertinent claim facts and/or insurance policy provisions relating to the reported loss. Slide’s correspondences and communications to the Insured and/or their representatives proves this fact.? Accordingly, Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it.? Finally, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 6. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c): Denied. This allegation is without basis. Slide has consistently acted promptly upon all communications with respect to this claim as previously outlined. Slide has adjusted the underlying loss in as thorough and expedient a manner as possible. Moreover, Slide routinely communicated with the Insured and/or their representatives regarding the underlying claim. Thus, Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Any assertions to the contrary are unsupported by the facts. 7. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d): Denied. Slide has not denied the underlying claim without reasonable investigation of the reported loss. As referenced in the factual narrative above, Slide investigated the reported claim and adjusted the loss in as thorough and expedient a manner as possible.? Following the investigation and evaluation of the underlying claim payment(s) were tendered to the Insured. Accordingly, there is simply no support for this allegation and Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Finally, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 8. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e): Denied. This allegation is without basis.? As referenced in the factual narrative above, Slide investigated the reported claim and issued payment(s). There is simply no support for this allegation and Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Finally, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 9. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f): Denied. Slide did not fail to provide an explanation for its denial of the claim. Slide has conducted a reasonable investigation of the reported loss as referenced in the factual narrative above. Slide did not deny the underlying claim, but instead issued payment(s) to the Insured. Thus, there is simply no support for this allegation and Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Finally, the insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 10. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g): Denied.? This allegation is without basis.? Slide promptly notified the Insured and/or their representatives regarding the pertinent claim facts and information needed relating to the claim. Slide’s communications prove this fact.? Accordingly, Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it.? Finally, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 11. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h): Denied.? This allegation is without basis.? Slide clearly and promptly notified the Insured and/or their representatives regarding the pertinent claim facts and specific information needed relating to the claim. Slide’s communications to the Insured and their representatives prove this fact.? Moreover, Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it.? Finally, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 12. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i): Denied. Slide denies any unfair claim settlement practices. Slide has acted fairly and honestly towards the Insured.? The underlying claim was investigated and adjusted in as thorough and expedient a manner as possible.?Following the investigation and evaluation of the underlying claim payment(s) were issued. Thus, Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Finally, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 13. 626.9541(1)(i)(4): Denied. Slide has not failed to pay undisputed amounts. As indicated herein, the underlying claim was investigated and adjusted in as thorough and expedient a manner as possible.?Following the investigation and evaluation of the underlying claim, payment(s) were tendered to the Insured. Accordingly, Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it.? Finally, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE INSURANCE POLICY The CRN fails to allege specific violations of the insurance policy and provides no specific facts or circumstances of wrongdoing. The boilerplate CRN merely sets forth blanket allegations of wrongdoing, without further information. As such, the CRN is defective, as it failed to specifically identify the policy language that is the subject of the alleged violation, and further failed to include sufficient facts to put Slide on notice of the alleged violations. Notwithstanding, Slide denies any and all allegations of policy violations. All actions by Slide were done in compliance with the applicable Policy. As indicated above, Slide thoroughly investigated the reported loss including inspection of the Insured’s property. Thus, it is clear that Slide has acted in compliance with the Policy. Slide asserts that it has at all times complied with the terms of the Policy and has complied with all applicable provisions of the Policy and Florida Statutes in the handling of this matter. STATEMENTS AS TO CURING THE DEFECTS OUTLINED IN THE NOTICE The CRN asserts that Slide must tender all insurance benefits due and owing. Nevertheless, the method for curing violations alleged in a Civil Remedy Notice is not determined by the Insured. Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co., 753 So. 2d So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). Accordingly, Florida Statutes Section 624.155 does not impose on an insurer the obligation to pay whatever the Insured demands. Section 624.155(2)(d) would have no effect or purpose under such an interpretation. Thus, Slide reasserts that it has acted in good faith towards its Insured at all times. Slide references to all the facts herein, which unequivocally demonstrate Slide’s expedient and timely administration of the Insured’s claim. Slide further asserts its full and strict compliance with the Policy and reiterates that it has acted properly in responding to the underlying claim in compliance with its contractual and legal obligations. Slide denies any wrongdoing in the handling of the underlying claim. Additionally, Slide denies violating any Florida Statute, Administrative Code, or code of ethics. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the documented facts of this claim establish that Slide acted diligently in its claims response and adequately performed its obligations under the policy of insurance and Florida law. Thus, the facts contradict all allegations that Slide has in any manner acted improperly or contrary to its contractual obligations to the Insured in this claim. Herein, Slide has attempted to fully and adequately respond to the allegations the Insured allege in the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation filed with the Department. Should there be any questions or further inquiry with respect to this matter, please contact the undersigned at (813) 761-1866 or at mnixon@slideinsurance.com. Sincerely, /s/ Michael Nixon Michael Nixon, 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