Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     794468
Filing Accepted:  11/27/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
BURGESS   First Name   ANTHONY
Street Address * 16 ARPIEKA AVENUE
City, State Zip * ST. AUGUSTINE, FL 32080
Email Address * MYA@GREENLAWGRP.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   BURGESS   First Name   ANTHONY
Policy # * 1462722596 Claim #* 01000119697
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*   FRONTLINE INSURANCE UNLIMITED COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10074
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* DARLA SIRLS 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 September 26th, 2024, Anthony Burgess (hereinafter “INSURED”), suffered property damage at his property located at 16 Arpieka Avenue, St. Augustine, FL 32080. The property suffered extensive damage to the roof. First Protective Insurance Company. (hereinafter “Frontline”) issued an insurance policy for the Insured’s property, Policy Number 1462722596, 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 FRONTLINE of the damage sustained to the property and contemporaneously provided an estimate of the damages in the amount of $35,800.83. Despite demand of payment, FRONTLINE has failed or refused to pay full value to protect and return property to pre-loss FRONTLINE ’s refusal to adequately and otherwise make INSURED whole, constitutes a breach of contract. As a result of FRONTLINE ‘’forementioned breach of contract, it has become necessary for INSURED to retain the services of FIRM. FRONTLINE has engaged in a customary business practice and a deliberate course of conduct to hinder resolution of its claims until they enter litigation FRONTLINE 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 FRONTLINE 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 in an effort to delay and frustrate the process. FRONTLINE 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 FRONTLINE to not settle claims when it could do so, and these dilatory tactics serve no purpose other than to increase profits. FRONTLINE 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, FRONTLINE 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 10-07-2025 This civil remedy notice is hereby withdrawn
jsuarez@chartwelllaw.com 01-21-2025 SHAWN E. DEVENDORF, ESQUIRE Direct Dial: (786) 349-3612 sdevendorf@chartwelllaw.com Reply To: Miami Office 100 SE 2nd Street, Suite 2150 Miami, FL 33131-5322 Phone: (305) 372-9044 Facsimile: (305) 372-5044 January 21, 2025 VIA E-MAIL TO: paul@greenlawgrp.com Paul Green, Esq. Green Law Group and VIA E-FILING: Dept. of Financial Services Civil Remedy Notice Website Florida Department Of Financial Services Consumer Assistance/Civil Remedy Section Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0322 RE: Anthony Burgess / Civil Remedy Notice Date of Loss : September 26, 2024 Claim No. : 01000119697 CRN Filing No. : 794468 Policy No. : 1462722596 Address : 16 Arpieka Avenue, St. Augustine, FL 32080 Our File No. : 890.0113829 To Whom It May Concern: This office has been retained by First Protective Insurance Company (“First Protective”) in connection with the above referenced claim. Please accept the following as First Protective’s Response to the Civil Remedy Notice (“CRN” or “Notice”) filed on November 27, 2024 by or on behalf of Anthony Burgess (“Insured”). First Protective notes that the subject Notice was filed against “Frontline Insurance Unlimited Company.” Frontline Insurance Unlimited Company did not issue a homeowners insurance policy to the Insured and at no time was there an insurer-insured relationship between them. Nor was the subject claim ever submitted to Frontline Insurance Unlimited Company by or on behalf of the Insured. Thus, the Notice was not properly directed at the correct insurance carrier; however, in an abundance of caution, and without waiving any objections, rights, or defenses, First Protective files the instant response to address the allegations that could potentially have been made against it. Separately, First Protective notes that the subject Notice was only filed on behalf of Anthony Burgess, but does not reference Landra Burgess, who is noted as an additional insured under the policy. Thus, the Notice is deficient in this regard as well. By virtue of this response, First Protective does not agree that the Notice is proper notice as required by section 624.155, Fla. Stat., and in fact, specifically posits that this Notice is void and should be rejected. First Protective specifically denies each and every allegation contained in the Notice and asserts that the Notice fails to comply with the specificity requirements mandated by Florida Statute § 624.155. A civil remedy notice must set forth specific statutory provisions the insurer allegedly violated, the facts giving rise to the violation, the relevant policy language, and a statement that the notice is given to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by the statute. See Landers v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 234 So. 3d 856, 858 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). Similarly, 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). It is First Protective’s position that the CRN filed by the Insured is deficient pursuant to section 624.155(3)(b), Fla. Stat., which states: The [civil remedy] notice shall be on a form provided by the department and shall state with specificity the following information, and such other information as the department may require: 1. The statutory provision, including the specific language of the statute, which the authorized insurer allegedly violated. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation. 3. The name of any individual involved in the violation. 4. Reference to specific policy language that is relevant to the violation, if any. If the person bringing the civil action is a third party claimant, she or he shall not be required to reference the specific policy language if the authorized insurer has not provided a copy of the policy to the third party claimant pursuant to written request. 5. A statement that the notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section. (emphasis added.) First Protective objects to the filing of the Notice because the Insured failed to comply with section 624.155(3)(b)(2), Fla. Stat., which requires that the Notice include the facts and circumstances giving rise to each violation. While the Notice contains some statements relating to the loss, there are no facts alleged that support or provide notice to the carrier of the specific violations and/or alleged acts complained of. Many of the alleged violations appear to be a boilerplate recitation of the statute and general conclusory allegations that do not contain any factual support. For example, the Notice fails to acknowledge that the Insured outright failed to provide a sworn proof of loss within 30 days after it was requested by First Protective on October 9, 2024. Additionally, the Notice alleges that First Protective “consistently ‘shuffles’ desk adjusters when the undersigned attorney calls to discuss claims,” but then only listed Darla Sirls as the sole person on behalf of First Protective with knowledge of the allegations. None of the additional adjusters that the Notice discusses are named in the Notice. As such, the Notice is premature, vague and insufficient to put First Protective on notice as to what it allegedly did wrong, because any and all covered damages fell below the policy deductible based on its investigation and the Insured has not provided any information to the contrary despite First Protective’s requests for same. Furthermore, the vague nature of this Notice is further evidenced by the fact that it alleges the carrier as “Frontline Insurance Unlimited Company.” Frontline Insurance Unlimited Company did not issue a homeowners insurance policy to the Insured and at no time was there an insurer-insured relationship between them. Nor was a claim ever submitted to Frontline Insurance Unlimited Company by or on behalf of the Insured. As such, the Notice is vague and insufficient to put First Protective on notice as to what it allegedly did wrong, as it does not address the correct insurance carrier, and fails to address the facts of the claim. Failure to provide such specificity is direct and clear noncompliance with the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 624.155 and renders the Notice deficient on its face as to form and substance. Indeed, the lack of factual specificity leaves uncertainty as to how to cure the alleged bad faith conduct. See Valenti v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., No. 8:04-cv-1615-T-30TGW, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36880, at *7 (M.D. Fla. June 6, 2006) (The purpose of the civil remedy notice is to provide insurers one last opportunity to settle a claim with the insured to avoid unnecessary litigation). The Insured also failed to comply with section 624.155(3)(b)(4), Fla. Stat., which requires references to specific policy language. Notably, the Notice does not list any specific policy provisions. Instead, the Notice broadly states “see below,” which outright fails to provide any specificity as to what specific policy language the Insured is relying upon in support of the purported violations. Separately, even though the Notice says “see below” under the policy language section, the Notice contains no specific policy language in any section of the Notice. Therefore, the Insured’s failure to list specific policy language relevant to the alleged violations fails to comply with section 624.155(3)(b)(4), Fla. Stat. See Julien v. United Prop. & Cas, Ins. Co., 2020 Fla. App, LEXIS 13520 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (citing fox v. Starr Indemn. & Liab. Co., No, 8:16-CV-3254-T-23MAP-2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65123, 2017 WL 1541294, at *2 (M.D. Fla, April 28, 2017)) (an insurer’s listing of whole sections of the insurance policy in a civil remedy notice “appear[ed] to lack specificity”). As such, First Protective was not provided with notice of the specific policy language that it allegedly failed to comply with. The Notice 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. Additionally, as described in detail above, the facts alleged in the Notice are overbroad and conclusory and do not contain any specific factual support for the alleged violations. First Protective, therefore, is unable to ascertain the reasons for the alleged statutory violations from the Notice rendering the Notice deficient. For these reasons, the Notice should be denied and rejected. With regard to the facts of the claim, subject loss was reported on October 9, 2024 with an alleged date of loss of September 26, 2024. In order to adjust and investigate the claim, First Protective requested documentation and information, including a sworn proof of loss. First Protective also had the property inspected by an independent adjuster on November 7, 2024. Based on its adjustment and investigation, it was determined that the covered damages fell below the applicable policy deductible. This coverage determination was communicated to the Insured in the correspondence issued by First Protective on November 12, 2024. At no time during the adjustment of the claim did the Insured and/or his representatives provide First Protective with an executed sworn proof of loss, which was requested on October 9, 2024. Therefore, despite the Insured’s failure to cooperate with the terms and conditions of the policy, First Protective investigated the claim based on all of the information available to it and correctly determined that no payment was owed because any and all covered damages fell below the policy deductible. The Insured alleges various reasons why this Notice was filed and also alleges multiple statutory violations; however, no specific facts or circumstances are provided to support these allegations. As previously stated, the Notice is simply a recitation of general, stock, and unsupported allegations of bad faith conduct which are not specifically alleged or described. First Protective specifically denies that it has violated any of these sections and denies all other allegations of bad faith or improper claims handling in this matter. However, notwithstanding these allegations, the Insured failed to provide factual support for these alleged violations within the body of the Notice. Nonetheless, First Protective denies the following allegations made by the Insured in the Notice: Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer: First Protective denies any allegation pertaining to any unsatisfactory settlement offer with regard to the subject claim. The Insured failed to submit any facts or circumstances in support of this alleged violation. As demonstrated in the factual summary set forth above, First Protective made a proper coverage determination in this matter and had requested the Insured to provide additional documentation and information. However, the Insured failed to provide all of the requested information, including a complete sworn proof of loss. The Insured’s assertions to the contrary lack support. 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. At no time did First Protective, its agents, or its employees employ any unfair business practice during the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. Claim Delay: First Protective denies any delay on its part in the claim handling and processing of the loss, as is evident from the facts outlined above. First Protective promptly acknowledged the Insured’s claim and initiated its investigation of the loss. First Protective’s investigation of the claim revealed that the covered damages fell below the deductible for the Insured’s claim under the terms and conditions of the policy. First Protective then immediately sent a coverage determination letter to the Insured. At all times throughout the handling and adjustment of this claim, First Protective acted in accordance with its duties and obligations pursuant to the policy of insurance and acted as promptly as possible under the circumstances to advise the Insured of the determination as to coverage for the alleged loss. Fla. Stat. §624.155(1)(b)(1): Denied. First Protective 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 factual summary above, the conduct of First Protective following its receipt of the first notice of the loss has been compliant with all aspects of Florida law. First Protective promptly investigated the claim, made a coverage determination based on the applicable policy language and Florida law, and promptly advised the Insured of the determination. First Protective asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligations set forth in the subject insurance policy. Fla. Stat. §624.155(1)(b)(3): Denied. First Protective has not failed to promptly settle this claim. As supported by the above claim facts, First Protective asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. First Protective promptly investigated the claim, made a coverage determination based on the applicable policy language and Florida law, and promptly advised the Insured of the determination. The Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. Fla. Stat. §626.9541(1)(i)(2): Denied. There is no showing by the Insured to support this allegation of misrepresentation purportedly made for the purpose and with the intent of affecting settlement of the subject claims on less favorable terms than those provided in, and contemplated by, the subject policy of insurance. As shown above, First Protective was completely forthcoming with the Insured at all times material hereto. The Insured did not submit any facts or circumstances in support of this alleged violation. First Protective asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligations set forth in the subject policy. Fla. Stat. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Denied. This allegation is without basis. First Protective has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of claims at all times. The aforementioned facts demonstrate that First Protective employed proper and customary claims practices in the investigation and adjustment of this claim, and in strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Furthermore, the Insured submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. Fla. Stat. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b): Denied. Again, there is no showing by the Insured to support this baseless allegation of misrepresentation of pertinent facts or policy provisions relating to the coverages at issue. First Protective has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of claims at all times. The aforementioned facts demonstrate that First Protective employed proper practices in the investigation and adjustment of this claim, and in strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. The Insured does not submit any facts or circumstances in support of this alleged violation. Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c): Denied. There is no showing by the Insured to support this baseless allegation of failing to acknowledge or act properly upon communications with respect to the claim. As shown in the detailed factual summary above, First Protective was forthcoming with the Insured at all times material hereto and acted as promptly as possible under the circumstances to advise the Insured of its coverage decision. The Insured does not submit any facts or circumstances in support of this alleged violation. Moreover, First Protective asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligations set forth in the subject insurance policy. Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d): Denied. This allegation is without basis. As demonstrated above, First Protective asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. First Protective promptly investigated the claim, made a coverage determination based on the applicable policy language and Florida law, and promptly advised the Insured of the determination. The Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e): Denied. As set forth in the factual summary provided above, First Protective sent correspondence acknowledging the claim immediately upon receiving the first notice of loss. First Protective also promptly notified the Insured of First Protective’s coverage determination and advised of the pertinent policy provisions supporting same. The Insured outright failed to provide sworn proof of loss within 30 days of First Protective’s request, which was first requested on October 9, 2024. The Insured does not submit any facts or circumstances in support of this alleged violation. Moreover, First Protective asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligations set forth in the subject insurance Policy. Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f): Denied. Again, there is no showing by the Insured to support this alleged violation. As set forth above, First Protective promptly informed the Insured of its coverage determination. The conduct of First Protective following its receipt of its first notice of the loss demonstrates compliance with all aspects of Florida law. At all times throughout the handling, adjustment and settlement of this claim, First Protective acted in strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g): Denied. There is no showing by the Insured to support this baseless allegation of failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of the claim. As shown in the factual summary above, First Protective issued correspondences to the Insured and/or his representatives which included requests for additional information and documentation, including a sworn proof of loss, on October 9, 2024. The Insured does not submit any facts or circumstances in support of this alleged violation. Moreover, First Protective asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligations set forth in the subject insurance policy. Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h): Denied. This allegation is without basis. As shown in the above, First Protective evaluated the claim as promptly as possible under the circumstances, then issued a timely claim determination to the Insured pursuant to the terms of the Policy and Florida law. The Insured does not submit any facts or circumstances in support of this alleged violation. First Protective has adjusted the loss to the extent possible despite the Insured’s non-compliance with the policy’s post-loss duties. Furthermore, First Protective has acted reasonably in adjusting the loss based on the information available to it and in accordance with the terms of the subject policy. First Protective conducted a reasonable and diligent investigation to assess the damages in this loss in light of the Insured’s failure to comply with his post-loss duties and promptly communicated with the Insured throughout the investigation—all within the mandates of Florida law. Throughout the handling of the Insured’s insurance claim, First Protective has acted in good faith towards the interests of its Insured. First Protective investigated the loss in accordance with the policy provisions and standard claims handling practices. First Protective, therefore, denies any allegations to the contrary. In further response to the Notice, First Protective denies the allegations therein and denies that it has violated any Florida Statute, rule, law or other authority in its handling of the Insured’s claim. We trust that the foregoing is sufficient to advise of First Protective’s position with regard to the Civil Remedy Notice filed by the Insured. If any additional information is required, please feel free to contact the undersigned regarding same. Very truly yours, CHARTWELL LAW By: Shawn E. Devendorf Shawn E. Devendorf
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