Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     794253
Filing Accepted:  11/26/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
SCHULDT   First Name   CHRIS
Street Address * 245 SOUTHWEST PLANTATION TERRACE
City, State Zip * LAKE CITY, FL 32025
Email Address * MYA@GREENLAWGRP.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   SCHULDT   First Name   CHRIS
Policy # * 79CVS840-7 Claim #* 5967R8435
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* GREEN First Name * PAUL Initial
Street Address* 8833 PERIMETER PARK BLVD. STE. 104
City, State Zip* JACKSONVILLE , FLORIDA 32216
Email Address * PAUL@GREENLAWGRP.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10739
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* FRANK ROBERT AND ALL SUPERVISORS
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Unfair Trade Practice
Claim Delay
* 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.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

See below
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

On or about May 10th, 2024, Chris Schuldt (hereinafter “INSURED”), suffered property damage at his property located at 245 Southwest Plantation Terrace, Lake City, FL 32025. The property suffered extensive damage to the roof. State Farm Florida Insurance Company. (hereinafter “State Farm”) issued an insurance policy for the Insured’s property, Policy Number 79CVS840-7, which was in full force and effect on the date of the loss. The loss was the result of a significant windstorm. Shortly following the loss, the Insured retained the Green Law Group (hereinafter “FIRM”) to help expedite the claim to restore the property to its pre-loss condition. FIRM timely notified STATE FARM of the damage sustained to the property and contemporaneously provided an estimate of the damage in the amount of $72,700.35. Despite demand of payment, STATE FARM has failed or refused to pay full value to protect and return property to pre-loss STATE FARM’s refusal to adequately and otherwise make INSURED whole, constitutes a breach of contract. As a result of STATE FARM ‘’forementioned breach of contract, it has become necessary for INSURED to retain the services of FIRM. STATE FARM has engaged in a customary business practice and a deliberate course of conduct to hinder resolution of its claims until they enter litigation STATE FARM regularly and consistently “shuffles” desk adjusters when the undersigned attorney calls to discuss claims. One adjuster will imply he can help on the claim but after several minutes state that he does not have the authority to settle the claim, and another desk adjuster is needed for that claim. This practice is used solely to insulate STATE FARM in litigation by saying that their adjusters are available to adjust and settle claims and are not avoiding settling. However, all is doing is “passing off” a claim from one adjuster to another to delay and frustrate the process. STATE FARM regularly and consistently denies justified claims outright, omits or denies specific line items required to properly repair/replace a homeowner’s roof, and uses deceptive tactics, some, aforementioned, to prolong the process in a hope that the homeowner will cancel his retainer with the FIRM. It has become a pattern of practice for STATE FARM to not settle claims when it has the ability to do so, and these dilatory tactics serve no purpose other than to increase profits. STATE FARM has violated the following statutory provisions: §642.155(1)(b)(1) - Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly towards its insured and with due regards 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 reasonable clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlement under other provisions 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) – Committing or performing with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice any of the following: (a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims; (b) Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue; (c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims; (d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information; (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 with 30 days after proof-of-loss statements have been completed; (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; (g) Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim; (h) Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary. To remedy this Civil Remedy Notice and to cure the conduct giving rise to the violations described herein, STATE FARM must immediately: (i) tender the full remaining payment to FIRM, on behalf of INSURED; (ii) make payment of any pre-judgment interest owed under Florida law, including §627.70131(5)(a), which is accruing daily; (iii) make payment for the additional expense incurred by the insured in hiring an attorney; and (iv) implement appropriate standards and procedures for claims investigations and resolution in regard to the outstanding amount of this Claim. The aforementioned payments should be tendered to the insured’s attorneys at Green Law Group, 8833 Perimeter Park Blvd., Suite 104, Jacksonville, Florida 32216.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
Paul@greenlawgrp.com 05-20-2026 This civil remedy notice is hereby withdrawn as all parties have come to a mutual agreement.
Viktoria.Willette@kubickidraper.com 01-23-2025 Undersigned counsel and the law firm of Kubicki Draper represent State Farm Florida Insurance Company (“State Farm”) with regard to the above-referenced claim. This shall serve as State Farm’s response to the “Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations” (“CRN”), filed by or on behalf of Chris Schuldt (hereinafter “Complainant” or “Insured”), with the Florida Department of Financial Services (“Department”) on November 26, 2024. The CRN arises from alleged wind damage to Complainant’s property located at 245 SW Plantation Ter., Lake City, FL 32025, that purportedly occurred on May 10, 2024, and was reported to State Farm on May 17, 2024 by the Complainant. Upon receiving notice of the loss, State Farm immediately acknowledged and commenced its investigation of Complainant’s claim. State Farm’s licensed adjuster inspected the property on May 28, 2024, and based on the inspection, as well as State Farm’s discussions with the Complainant and his contractor and its review of all available information, State Farm partially opened coverage for wind damage to the dwelling roof, front and right dwelling elevations and the airplane hanger roof. An estimate was prepared for repair of all covered damage observed, which totaled $1,010.13 replacement cost values (“RCV”); however, the covered damage did not exceed the policy’s $4,637 deductible. Notably, at the time of State Farm’s inspection, both the Complainant and Complainant’s contractor, Florida Premier Roofing, agreed with State Farm’s inspection findings and scope, with the Complainant advising he has shingles to make the repairs. Other than the repairs outlined in its estimate, State Farm determined that there was no other accidental direct physical loss observed to any other covered structures, advising the Complainant of unrelated scuff marks on the rear dwelling roof shingles. Written correspondence containing State Farm’s coverage decision, findings, estimate, summary of loss and relevant policy language it relied upon in reaching its decision was sent to Complainant on May 29, 2024 – twelve (12) days after State Farm received first notice of the loss. Complainant was encouraged to provide any additional pertinent information to State Farm for review. However, in the CRN, Complainant asserts (among other things) that State Farm failed to adequately evaluate and undervalue claims, intentionally delayed and denied benefits, intentionally ignored relevant facts, failed to act in good faith, and failed to institute necessary policies, procedures, guidelines, and protocols to adjust insurance claims promptly. Complainant further alleges State Farm violated 11 separate statutory provisions of sections 624.155 and 626.9541, Florida Statutes (2024) in handling the claim, citing, “Claim Delay, Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer and Unfair Trade Practice” as reasoning for filing the CRN. This is not so. State Farm has at all times handled this claim in good faith, and thus, respectfully and categorically denies without limitation each and every allegation contained within the CRN, including but not limited to the alleged violations of the cited provisions of Florida law. State Farm further denies any and all stated, implied, and/or unspecified allegations, including but not limited to denying any and all allegations of alleged improper claim handling, inadequate investigation, misrepresentation, failure to communicate, failure to settle in good faith, improper delay or denial, general business practices, and the like, whether or not specifically alleged by the CRN. As will be discussed herein, not only is the CRN riddled with defects that render it totally invalid, but also, Complainant’s claims against State Farm are substantively without merit. Addressing first the CRN’s legal sufficiency, State Farm objects to the CRN based on multiple defects, which render the CRN invalid and legally insufficient. Specifically, the CRN fails to comply with section 624.155(3)(b), Florida Statutes, which requires the CRN to specify the facts and circumstances giving rise to the alleged violations, the statutory provisions allegedly violated, as well as the relevant policy language at issue in the alleged violations. All such requirements must be strictly construed and complied with, as a claim for first-party bad faith does not exist apart from the statute creating it. This was confirmed by the appellate court’s decision in Julien v. United Property & Casualty Insurance Company, 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (on rehearing), where the Fourth District affirmed that a CRN is invalid and precludes a future bad faith claim where, as here, it fails to strictly comply with the specificity and other requirements of section 624.155(3)(b). As will be discussed, the instant CRN’s failure to strictly comply with section 624.155(3)(b) likewise renders it invalid. Here, little—if anything—is stated with specificity as required by the statute. State Farm also objects to the CRN’s failure to provide reference to specific policy language, which is expressly required by section 624.155(3)(b)4. Instead, Complainant ignores this section by failing to cite or reference any specific policy language that is relevant to the violation. The CRN thereby fails to comply with the specificity requirements of section 624.155(3)(b), given the broad, sweeping, and vague nature of the CRN’s reference to certain alleged policy contents. The CRN does not offer any basis and any policy provisions that might provide coverage for this claim, and none that might alter State Farm’s decision on this claim or warrant reconsideration, nor does it identify what provisions of the policy were misrepresented. Under Florida law, Complainant cannot prevail on a claim for extra-contractual damages without first establishing State Farm breached the insurance contract, yet he would force State Farm to essentially guess what policy provisions he believes were allegedly violated and why. An insurer cannot be forced to guess about these or any other matters. The CRN is therefore invalid. See Julien, 311 So. 3d 875 (holding broad references to policy language do not satisfy the specificity requirements of the civil remedy notice statute; such requirements are not mere technicalities). State Farm further objects to the CRN on the basis that it lacks sufficient specificity with regard to the alleged statutory violations, which, again, is expressly required by section 624.155(3)(b). The CRN lists eleven (11) separate statutory provisions State Farm allegedly violated; however, it offers no meaningful explanation as to how these provisions were allegedly violated or how they relate to the subject claim or the allegations of the CRN. Specifically, Complainant alleges State Farm committed the following violations: • Section 624.155(1)(b)(1), Florida Statutes. 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 her interests. • Section 624.155(1)(b)(3), Florida Statutes. Except as to liability coverages, failing to promptly settle claims, when the obligation to settle a claim has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage. • Section 626.9541 (1)(i)(2), Florida Statutes. A material misrepresentation made to an insured or any other person having an interest in the proceeds payable under such contract or policy, for the purpose and with the intent of effecting settlement of such claims, loss, or damage under such contract or policy on less favorable terms than those provided in, and contemplated by, such contract or policy • Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), Florida Statutes. Committing or performing with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice any of the following: a. Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims • Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), Florida Statutes. Committing or performing with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice any of the following: b. Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. • Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), Florida Statutes. Committing or performing with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice any of the following: c. Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. • Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), Florida Statutes. Committing or performing with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice any of the following: d. Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information. • Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e), Florida Statutes. Committing or performing with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice any of the following: 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; • Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), Florida Statutes. Committing or performing with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice any of the following: f. Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of the basis in the insurance policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement. • Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g), Florida Statutes. Committing or performing with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice any of the following: g. Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim. • Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h), Florida Statutes. Committing or performing with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice any of the following: h. Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary. State Farm responds to each individual violation as follows: • Section 624.155(1)(b)(1), Florida Statutes. Complainants provide no support for the allegation that State Farm did not attempt in good faith to settle the claim, and certainly no factual support that settlement was warranted under all the circumstances of this claim. In fact, there are no arguably claim-“specific” allegations found anywhere within Complainants’ CRN. As stated above, State Farm completed a thorough investigation of this claim and ultimately concluded that the covered damage observed to Complainants’ property was below the policy’s deductible. While it is evident Complainant is dissatisfied with the results of State Farm’s investigation, this sentiment does not amount to bad faith, nor can it serve as a basis for any future bad faith claim against State Farm. • Section 624.155(1)(b)(3), Florida Statutes. Again, Complainant provides no support for the allegation State Farm failed to promptly settle the claim once the obligation became reasonably clear under one portion of the policy so as to influence settlement under other portions of the policy. No money is due and owing in this case because while State Farm opened coverage, it was determined that the covered damage to Complainants’ property was below the policy’s deductible. As such, it’s unclear how State Farm was trying to improperly influence settlement under different portions of the policy. Complainant certainly provides no explanation in his CRN. • Section 624.155(1)(i)(2), Florida Statutes. Complainant does not identify any “material misrepresentation” made by State Farm, much less does he elaborate what State Farm materially misrepresented to effect settlement “on less favorable terms” than provided by the policy. In its coverage correspondence, State Farm explained its inspection findings, explained what it was covering and what conditions at the property were not covered, and included language pulled directly from the policy that supported its decision. Complainant provides no claim-specific facts or circumstances to the contrary, rather, he merely recites the statute verbatim within the section specifically labeled “To enable the insurer to investigate and resolve your claim, describe the facts and circumstances giving rise to the insurer’s violation as you understand them at this time.” • Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), Florida Statutes. In order to prove a violation under this provision of the law, Complainant must show State Farm commits this action “with such frequency to indicate a general business practice.” Complainant’s CRN contains no allegations concerning the frequency with which State Farm performs this action and no allegation that it rises to the level of a general business practice. Furthermore, Complainant provides no detail as to how State Farm’s claim investigation standards are lacking or deficient, and indeed, the body of the CRN does not mention State Farm’s investigation standards at all. While Complainant accuses State Farm of hindering resolution of the claim by “shuffling” him between desk adjusters, there is no support for this accusation, let alone any basis for Complainant’s claim that resolution of his claim was deliberately hindered, or hindered at all for that matter. All correspondence to Complainant from State Farm had the name, license number, and contact information of the Claim Specialist who drafted it. And State Farm’s coverage letter itself was sent timely, less than 30 days after State Farm received first notice of the loss. Moreover, Complainant’s allegation that State Farm “denies specific line items required to properly repair/replace a homeowner’s roof” is also without merit. State Farm provided the Complainant and his attorney with a detailed coverage decision letter and estimate which provided a break down of the damages found and replacement costs. Complainant does not identify what specific line items with regard to roof replacement were improperly denied by State Farm, and State Farm submits that this is because there were no such improper denials. • Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), Florida Statutes. In order to prove a violation under this provision of the law, Complainant must show State Farm commits this action “with such frequency to indicate a general business practice.” Complainant’s CRN contains no allegations concerning the frequency with which State Farm performs this action. Additionally the CRN provides no detail as to what pertinent facts relating to coverages at issue State Farm allegedly misrepresented, and in fact, fails to cite to any insurance policy provisions whatsoever. • Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), Florida Statutes. In order to prove a violation under this provision of the law, Complainant must show State Farm commits this action “with such frequency to indicate a general business practice.” Complainant’s CRN contains no allegations concerning the frequency with which State Farm performs this action. Additionally, the body of the CRN provides no detail as to which communication was unacknowledged or not timely responded to, and indeed, the CRN contains no allegations concerning delayed/deficient communication by State Farm whatsoever. There is absolutely no support for this claimed violation of the law. • Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), Florida Statutes. In order to prove a violation under this provision of the law, Complainant must show State Farm commits this action “with such frequency to indicate a general business practice.” Complainant’s CRN contains no allegations concerning the frequency with which State Farm performs this action and no allegation that it rises to the level of a general business practice. Furthermore, Complainant provides no claim-specific support for this assertion, and certainly cannot show State Farm denied his claim without conducting a reasonable investigation. Complainant’s claim was investigated by qualified professionals, to include a site inspection, discussions with Complainant and his contractors and representatives (who at the time of inspection agreed with State Farm’s inspection results), and review of all available information, after which coverage was opened, not denied. The covered damage observed by State Farm did not exceed the policy’s $4,637 deductible as explained in the coverage correspondence dated May 9, 2024. • Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e), Florida Statutes. In order to prove a violation under this provision of the law, Complainant must show they provided a proof-of-loss statement to State Farm, and State Farm failed to timely affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, or failed to provide a written statement that the claim is being investigated. Complainant’s CRN contains no allegations concerning the frequency with which State Farm performs this action and no allegation that it rises to the level of a general business practice. In the instant claim, Complainant provided no support for this assertion whatsoever. Complainant failed to provide a proof-of-loss statement to State Farm, a violation of their policy with State Farm, and the trigger for this statutory provision, which renders this allegation totally without merit. Furthermore, State Farm provided its written coverage decision to Complainant on May 29, 2024, following State Farm’s May 28, 2024 inspection of the property. • Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), Florida Statutes. In order to prove a violation under this provision of the law, Complainant must show State Farm commits this action “with such frequency to indicate a general business practice.” Complainant’s CRN contains no allegations concerning the frequency with which State Farm performs this action. Additionally, the body of the CRN provides no detail as to how State Farm failed 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 finding this claim was a covered loss that fell below the $4,637 deductible. On May 29, 2024 State Farm sent an extensive coverage decision letter that highlights multiple portions of the policy that were the covered and included an estimate which showed those covered damages fell below the $4,637 deductible. • Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g), Florida Statutes. In order to prove a violation under this provision of the law, Complainant must show State Farm commits this action “with such frequency to indicate a general business practice.” Complainant’s CRN contains no allegations concerning the frequency with which State Farm performs this action and no allegation that it rises to the level of a general business practice. In fact there are no allegations specific to this statutory violation at all. This appears to be a boilerplate allegation with no factual support provided within the body of the CRN. • Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h), Florida Statutes. In order to prove a violation under this provision of the law, Complainant must show State Farm commits this action “with such frequency to indicate a general business practice.” Complainant’s CRN contains no allegations concerning the frequency with which State Farm performs this action and no allegation that it rises to the level of a general business practice. In fact there are no allegations specific to this statutory violation at all. Complainant does not elaborate regarding what information was requested by State Farm that went unexplained or that he did not understand. This appears to be a boilerplate allegation with no factual support provided within the body of the CRN. In sum, the CRN is replete with conclusory assertions unsupported by any meaningful factual basis. Contrary to the specificity explicitly required by section 624.155(3)(b)2., the facts do not specify any details about the claimed damage. Furthermore, there are no dates, timeframes, or any other specific details concerning State Farm’s investigation of the claim, or its communication with Complainant and his representatives throughout the claims handling process. Instead, the CRN relies on vague and conclusory allegations without providing any claim-specific factual basis in support of same. Additionally, while Complainant claims State Farm’s investigation and adjustment was improper, Complainant fails to detail how State Farm’s evaluation or handling of this claim was allegedly deficient. And in fact, State Farm conducted a thorough investigation, including having the property inspected by a licensed Florida adjuster, as well as reviewing all documentation and pertinent information before issuing its coverage determination. In sum, while the body of the CRN lists various violations State Farm purportedly committed, there are no dates given to support these allegations, no names given as to who did these things, no specificity on how the claim was improperly adjusted, no specificity on how State Farm looked for ways to reduce recovery to Complainant and the like. Given that the purpose of a CRN is to give the insurer meaningful notice of the alleged violations and a meaningful opportunity to cure them, Complainant’s vague and over-broad allegations miss the mark, and preclude State Farm from conducting a fair and reasonable investigation as contemplated by the civil remedy statute. Moreover, the CRN does not comply with section 624.155(3)(b)3., which requires Complainant name “any individual involved in the violation.” In the Notice Against section, Complainant list “Frank Robert and all supervisors”. However, beyond noting that Mr. Robert signed State Farm’s coverage determination correspondence, the CRN provides no detail or clarity whatsoever as to whether Mr. Robert possess the most knowledge of the facts giving rise to the CRN’s allegations, and/or if he is most responsible for these facts. Furthermore, the CRN provides no detail or clarity whatsoever as to why—or how—Mr. Robert and “all supervisors” can simultaneously possess the most knowledge of the facts giving rise to the CRN’s allegations, and how or why all these individuals are together most responsible for these facts. The CRN does not distinguish whether some individuals are responsible for some violations and not others, or if all are cumulatively responsible for all allegations, much less does it give any explanation as to how the purported actions or omissions of these individuals amounted to a violation of Florida law. This lack of specificity does not give State Farm adequate notice and renders the CRN invalid, as State Farm cannot conduct a fair and reasonable investigation based on such overbroad allegations. Finally, the CRN makes improper and ambiguous demands which likewise invalidate the CRN for lack of specificity and are otherwise contrary to Florida law. Complainant demands State Farm “immediately” tender “full remaining payment,” plus an unspecified amount of attorney’s fees and statutory interest. Aside from being indefinite, this is clearly an improper demand to shorten and circumvent the 60-day cure period statutorily mandated by section 624.155. Moreover, State Farm has no way of knowing what Complainant considers “full remaining payment” to be. Additionally, such vagueness does not advise State Farm if the deductible is being included or excluded from the request, nor does it advise State Farm what collateral damages are in dispute to be considered or paid. To be clear, State Farm acknowledges that a CRN is not required to state the dollar amount being demanded, but the CRN must provide the insurer with sufficient information and a reasonable basis from which the insurer can determine what amount is being demanded to cure the claim. Similarly, if a CRN does demand a dollar amount, it must do so with specificity and without ambiguity. This CRN does neither. Defects such as these, which create genuine doubt and ambiguity as to what Complainant is seeking to cure the CRN, render the CRN invalid. Furthermore, by making such demands, Complainant asserts State Farm must essentially pay everything it would be liable for if it were actually found guilty of bad faith. Florida law does not impose on an insurer the obligation to pay whatever the insured or claimant demands. Rather, in a first-party matter such as this, an insurer is only required to pay the contractual amount still owed under the policy—if any. Thus, any demand that the insurer must purportedly pay attorney’s fees, costs, or any other type of extra-contractual damages renders the CRN invalid on its face and a legal nullity. See Lane v. Westfield Ins. Co., 862 So. 2d 774, 779 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Similarly, Complainant’s amorphous demand for State Farm to “implement appropriate standards and procedures for claims investigations” without more specificity or any detailed, meaningful way to facilitate such a request likewise invalidates the CRN. The purpose of the CRN is not to force the insurer to engage in a guessing game. Yet that is precisely what this CRN does by virtue of its lack of specificity and other defects. The deficiencies described above deprive State Farm of any meaningful notice and ability to respond. They also render any purported “cure” provisions illusory and render the CRN invalid. Defects such as these thwart the fundamental purpose of the CRN, which is to give the insurer the opportunity to cure the alleged violations within the 60-day statutory period. This CRN is contrary to the purpose and requirements of Florida law, including the notice and cure provisions of section 624.155, which are a necessary prerequisite to any future bad faith action against State Farm. See, e.g., Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). An invalid CRN, such as this, cannot serve as a condition precedent to any action for alleged bad faith against State Farm under section 624.155 or otherwise under Florida law. As such, this CRN should not be permitted to serve as the legal precursor for a bad-faith lawsuit, or any other action against State Farm. Subject to and without waiving these denials and objections and any other available defenses, State Farm submits that it has not violated any applicable provision of Florida law in handling this claim, in any way related to this claim, or in any litigation related to this claim. FACTS OF CLAIM As noted above, this claim stems form alleged wind damage to Complainant’s property that purportedly occurred on May 10, 2024. State Farm received first notice of the loss on May 17, 2024 by Complainant. State Farm immediately acknowledged the claim, and sent correspondence explaining Complainant’s duties after loss. State Farm further provided a copy of the Homeowner’s Bill of Rights, which outlined the Complainant’s rights specific to the claims handling process. On May 28, 2024, State Farm’s licensed field adjuster inspected Complainant’s property while Complainant and his contractor were present. Based on this inspection, investigation, and discussions with Complainant and his representatives, State Farm opened coverage for repair of the wind-related accidental direct physical loss observed at Complainant’s property; however, the covered loss did not exceed the policy’s $4,637 deductible. An estimate was prepared for repair of all covered damage observed, which totaled $1,010.13 pre-deductible. Notably, during State Farm’s inspection, both the Complainant and Complainant’s roofing contractor agreed with State Farm’s inspection findings and scope of damages with the Complainant informing State Farm he had the shingles to make the repairs. Other than the repairs outlined in its estimate, State Farm determined that there was no other accidental direct physical loss observed to any other covered structures from this date of loss and partially denied coverage for the older scuff marks on the rear slope of the roof that were not caused by this wind event. Written correspondence containing State Farm’s coverage decision, findings, estimate, summary of loss and relevant policy language it relied upon in reaching its decision was sent to Complainant on May 29, 2024 – twelve (12) days after State Farm received first notice of the loss. Complainant was encouraged to provide State Farm with any estimates for the covered portion of their loss which exceeds the policy’s deductible. Complainant was also provided with information on how to participate in mediation offered by the Department of Financial Services if he disagreed with State Farm’s decision. On October 31, 2024, Complainant’s attorney sent State Farm a Letter of Representation, advising that they would be representing Complainant for the current claim. The letter also requested a copy of Complainant’s policy and other claim documents. On November 13, 2024 State Farm acknowledged Complainant’s attorney’s letter, while attaching State Farm’s estimate and coverage determination letter. State Farm also advised that a copy of the policy was requested, that there are no other claims filed under the current policy, and provided the Claim Handler’s contact information. State Farm sent Complainant’s attorney a copy of the policy on November 21, 2024. The instant CRN was filed on November 26, 2024. State Farm has at all times acted in good faith, promptly, fairly, honestly, and with due diligence in its handling, investigation, and/or determination of what is owed on the claim and in any related litigation. Complainant’s allegations in the CRN amount, at most, to a mere disagreement regarding the cause of loss and/or the scope of coverage for the alleged losses, and conveniently ignore many of the true facts of this claim. Disagreement regarding such matters is not bad faith, and cannot serve as a basis for any future bad faith claim against State Farm. That being said, State Farm remains willing to review and consider any additional information which Complainant believes to be relevant to this matter and requests that any such additional information or documentation be provided immediately. State Farm will evaluate any additional information or documentation it receives in good faith, like it has already done thus far. As the foregoing demonstrates and confirms, State Farm has at all times handled this claim in good faith and is continuing to handle it in good faith. These are intended as examples and are not exhaustive. Further, State Farm objects to and denies the allegations of the CRN. The objections and denials herein are not necessarily exhaustive and this response shall not prevent State Farm from asserting any other appropriate objections, denials, and/or defenses related to this claim and/or CRN. Moreover, due to the objections and defects discussed herein, the Department of Financial Services should strike and/or reject the CRN as invalid. As a final matter, it should be emphasized that any policy issued by State Farm is governed by the policy’s terms, conditions, and exclusions together with any endorsements. This CRN response does not waive any such provisions of the policy. Furthermore, any action taken by or on behalf of State Farm or its authorized representative(s), whether in the past or future, to investigate the alleged loss, to adjust any claim or request for payment, or in any way related to or arising out of the subject claim or loss, shall not waive any of the terms, conditions, or any other provisions of the policy. Thank you for your time and attention in this matter. Please contact us if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, /s/ Christopher M. DelBene Christopher M. DelBene, Esq. Andrew H. Berlin, Esq. cc: State Farm
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