Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     794480
Filing Accepted:  11/27/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
GARCIA   First Name   DIEGO
Street Address * 6029 61ST CT E
City, State Zip * PALMETTO, FL 34221
Email Address * DIEGOGCD@HOTMAIL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   GARCIA   First Name   DIEGO
Policy # * 4413969153 Claim #* 01000075510
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* PLATT First Name * HOPE Initial
Street Address* 800 EAST BROWARD BLVD SUITE 500
City, State Zip* FT. LAUDERDALE , FL 33301
Email Address * HBP@WEKLAW.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   FIRST PROTECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10897
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* MARK ROBINSON
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
Claim Delay
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
* Statutory provision(s) which the insurer allegedly violated.
 
624.155(1)(b)(1) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests.
624.155(1)(b)(2) Making claims payments to insureds or beneficiaries not accompanied by a statement setting forth the coverage under which payments are being made.
624.155(1)(b)(3) Except as to liability coverages, failing to promptly settle claims, when the obligation to settle a claim has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(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)(3)(i) Failing to pay personal injury protection insurance claims within the time periods required by s. 627.736(4)(b).
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

SECTION I – CONDITIONS C. Duties After Loss is deleted and replaced by the following: C. Duties After Loss. An “assignment agreement” does not change the obligations to perform the duties required under this Policy. In case of a loss to covered property, you must see that the following are done. These duties must be performed either by you, an “insured” seeking coverage, or a representative of either: 1. Give immediate notice to us or our agent. Except for Reasonable Emergency Measures taken under Additional Coverage 2., there is no coverage for repairs that begin before the earlier of: a. 72 hours after we are notified of the loss; b. The time of loss inspection by us; or c. The time of other approval by us. If you unreasonably deny us access to inspect the loss during the period in a. above, coverage for repairs beyond Reasonable Emergency Measures begins the earlier of when we are given access to inspect the loss or when we fail to appear at a scheduled loss inspection. 2. To the degree reasonably possible, retain the damaged property and any photographs of the damaged property; and Allow us to inspect, subject to the paragraph above, all damaged property prior to its removal from the “residence 5. Protect the property from further damage. The following must be performed: a. Take reasonable emergency measures that are necessary to protect the covered property from further damage, as provided under Additional Coverage 2. A reasonable emergency measure under 5.a. above may include a permanent repair when necessary to protect the covered property from further damage or to prevent unwanted entry to the property. To the degree reasonably possible, the damaged property must be retained for us to inspect. b. Keep an accurate record of repair expenses. To the degree reasonably possible, take pictures prior to repairs commencing. 6. Cooperate with us in the investigation of a claim. This includes speaking to and sharing information with us or any person authorized to act on our behalf, and providing documents which can be reasonably obtained by you, to facilitate our investigation of the claim. You, any “insured” seeking coverage, or a representative of either of these: a. Must cooperate with our investigation; b. Must not act in any manner that prevents us or any person authorized to act on our behalf, from investigating the claim; and c. May not act in any manner to obstruct our investigation. 7. Prepare an inventory of damaged personal property showing the quantity, description, actual cash value and amount of loss. Attach all bills, receipts, and related documents that justify the figures in the inventory. 8. As often as we reasonably require: a. Show us the damaged property and the cause of loss and the condition it was in at the time of loss, if possible, except as to any repairs performed under SECTION I – PROPERTY COVERAGES, Additional Coverages, 2. Reasonable Emergency Measures; b. Provide us with records and documents we request and permit us to make copies; 10. Produce any updates to the documents and information described above, including revised descriptions of loss, scope of loss, estimates, or other supporting information: a. As this information becomes available, and if additional loss or damage is discovered or incurred; and b. If you are provided with new estimates or invoices regarding the losses submitted or not submitted in the proof of loss. The duties above apply regardless of whether you, an “insured” seeking coverage, or a representative of either retains or is assisted by a party who provides legal advice, insurance advice or expert claim advice, regarding an insurance claim under this Policy. The following conditions are added to SECTION I – CONDITIONS of your policy: T. Notice of Claim If your policy provides hurricane or windstorm coverage, then a claim, supplemental claim or reopened claim for loss or damage caused by hurricane or other windstorm must be given to us in accordance with the terms of this policy and within three years after the hurricane first made landfall or a windstorm other than a hurricane caused the damage. (Supplemental claim or reopened claim means an additional claim for recovery from us for losses from the same hurricane or other windstorm which we have previously adjusted pursuant to the initial claim.) This condition concerning time for submission of claim does not affect any limitation for legal action against us as provided in this policy under the Suit Against Us Condition including any amendment to that condition (This is Condition S. in form HO 00 04) SECTION I – PERILS INSURED AGAINST A. Coverage A – Dwelling And Coverage B – Other Structures 1. We insure against direct physical loss to property described in Coverages A and B. 2. We do not insure, however, for loss: a. Excluded under Section I – Exclusions; b. Involving collapse, including any of the following conditions of property or any part of the property: (1) An abrupt falling down or caving in; (2) Loss of structural integrity, including separation of parts of the property or property in danger of falling down or caving in; or (3) Any cracking, bulging, sagging, bending, leaning, settling, shrinkage or expansion as such condition relates to (1) or (2) above; except as provided in E.8. Collapse under Section I – Property Coverages; or c. Caused by: (6) Any of the following: (a) Wear and tear, marring, deterioration; (c) Smog, rust or other corrosion, or dry rot; SECTION I – EXCLUSIONS B. We do not insure for loss to property described in Coverages A and B caused by any of the following. However, any ensuing loss to property described in Coverages A and B not precluded by any other provision in this policy is covered. 1. Weather conditions. However, this exclusion only applies if weather conditions contribute in any way with a cause or event excluded in A. above to produce the loss. 2. Acts or decisions, including the failure to act or decide, of any person, group, organization or governmental body. 3. Faulty, inadequate or defective: a. Planning, zoning, development, surveying, siting; b. Design, specifications, workmanship, repair, construction, renovation, remodeling, grading, compaction; c. Materials used in repair, construction, renovation or remodeling; or d. Maintenance; of part or all of any property whether on or off the "residence premises". Paragraph A.1. in Form HO 00 03 is deleted and replaced by the following: 1. We insure for sudden and accidental direct physical loss to covered property described in Coverages A and B unless the loss is otherwise excluded or limited in this policy. However, loss does not include, and we will not pay for, any “diminution in value.” Paragraph 2.c.(5) is deleted and replaced by the following: (5) Repeated seepage or leakage of water or the presence or condensation of humidity, moisture, or vapor, that occurs or develops over a period of time, whether hidden or not. In the event this exclusion applies, we will not pay for any damages sustained starting from the first day and instant the repeated seepage or leakage of water or steam, or the presence or condensation of humidity, moisture, or vapor began. Paragraph 2.c.(6)(c) is deleted and replaced by the following: (c) Smog, rust, decay or other corrosion;
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Diego Garcia ("Insured") purchased an insurance policy ("Policy") from First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Homeowners Insurance (“Frontline”) with effective coverage on the date of loss, on or about September 28, 2022, as a result of Hurricane Ian, and Policy number 4413969153 to insure the property located at 6029 61st Ct E Palmetto, FL 34221 (the "Property").?? On or about September 28, 2022, the Property suffered severe wind and rain damage as a result of Hurricane Ian, which caused ensuing water damage to the Property, including but not limited to the interior ceilings, walls and floors and roof ("Loss"). Upon discovery of the damages from Hurricane Ian, September 28, 2022, the Insured immediately reported the claim to Frontline. The Insured retained a Florida Adjusters Group, (“FLAG”) to aid with this claim. FLAG inspected the property and determined that it was clear that the loss was a result of Hurricane Ian. Frontline acknowledged the claim and assigned the loss claim number 01000075510. A field adjuster, Mark Robinson, was assigned to the claim. Mr. Robinson inspected the property on October 20, 2022, less than one month after hurricane Ian made landfall. During his inspection, Mr. Robinson viewed the interior and exterior of the home and the roof. FLAG provided Frontline with photos of the damage, as well as an estimate in the amount of $67,453.81 to place the home in the pre-loss condition. As the property was damaged severely by Hurricane Ian, the insured did everything he could to protect the home from further damage, as required under the policy. Prior to the Field Adjuster’s inspection, the Insured hired KKA restoration (“KKA”), to perform water dry out at the home. One of the areas that was specifically damaged was the ceiling in the garage. KKA placed air movers and dehumidifiers in the home as well as placed a tarp on the roof. The dry out equipment was in the home from September 29, 2022, through October 3, 2022. KKA submitted their invoice, photos of the home before and after the dry out and tarp on the roof, and their invoice for their services in the amount of $15,153.22, which includes the removal and replacement of the tarp for the Field Adjuster’s inspection. Despite having all of this information, Frontline, refused to pay this invoice. The insured also hired Delta Mold Services to perform mold testing, as he was concerned that the moisture would lead to mold. The Mold test was performed on March 3, 2023. Mold was found in the garage where there was water damage from the hurricane. Delta Mold charged $1,700 for the testing and lab analysis. Frontline also refused to pay this invoice. On June 1, 2023, ten months after the date of loss, Frontline issued a coverage determination indicating that they were only opening coverage for minor items related to the roof, including but not limited to one shingle. Frontline states that this damage is below deductible and therefore did not issue a payment. Frontline sent out their own Engineer to inspect the home who determined that the damage to Mr. Garcia’s home was from Hurricane Ian. Despite this, Frontline still has refused to indemnify Mr. Garcia. Frontline further provided a supporting estimate that glossed over the extent and nature of damages. However, in the same letter, Frontline stated that they did not believe that there was a peril created opening, despite the fact that a Category 5 hurricane had just made landfall and impacted the Insured’s home, photographic evidence. It is clear from the photos of Mr. Garcia’s home, that the majority of his siding on the roof was coming off and was damaged from this storm, this is among many areas of damage that were sustained to the home. Frontline failed to tender the full amount of monies due and owing under the terms of the policy. To date, notwithstanding the Insureds’ pleas for relief, Frontline has continued to refuse to acknowledge its obligation to tender all monies due and owing to the Insured, and to fully assist the Insured in the mitigation of his damages. The Insured timely notified Frontline of the damages and opened a claim pursuant to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In response to their claim for benefits, Frontline sent a representative to investigate and adjust the loss. The adjuster for Frontline confirmed that there were significant damages to the property. Despite recognizing the severity of the damage to the property, Frontline and its representatives attempted to settle the claim for far less than was owed. Frontline misrepresented to the Insureds that it had performed a full and fair investigation and adjustment of the claim at that time and misrepresented that the amounts offered were the full value of the indemnity owed under the provisions of the insurance policy. These misrepresentations were either intentional, or the result of Frontline failing to adequately train and supervise its adjusters and representatives. The carrier needs to be held accountable for this unilateral and unreasonable delay. Frontline has violated Florida Statute §624.155(1)(b)(1) by continuously not attempting in good faith to settle this claim when it should have done so if it had acted fairly and honestly towards its insured. Frontline has also violated Florida Statute §624.155(1)(b)(3) by failing to promptly settle this covered claim to influence settlement in its favor. Despite being presented all of the indisputable evidence of the amount of damage sustained by this Property. Frontline violated Florida Statutes §626.9541(1)(i)(2) and §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) by making material misrepresentations to the Insureds for the purpose and with the intent to settle the claim on less favorable terms than those provided and contemplated by the policy. Frontline was informed multiple times of the discrepancies and inconsistencies of the below value payment issued to the Insureds. While Frontline was made aware of this information for the purpose of obtaining the money contractually owed to the Insureds under its insurance policy to attempt to return their home to its pre-loss condition in a timely fashion, Frontline has refused to do so and has delayed properly adjusting this claim. Frontline violated §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) when it failed to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigations of claims. Under no circumstances is there an excuse for the lack of a proper investigation in this case. Frontline and their representatives are willfully blind and grossly underqualified to handle a loss such as the one sustained by the Insureds. After being placed on notice as to the blatant underpayment of the Insureds’ claim, Frontline has yet to rectify their actions and do right by the Insured by paying the money they are contractually owed. Frontline violated §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g) by failing to promptly notify the Insureds of any additional information necessary for processing the claim. The Insured has more than complied with each and every request and there has still been no action by Frontline. In the event Frontline is in need of additional information, they have failed to promptly notify the Insureds in a timely manner. This pattern of behavior is perpetuated by Frontline and their representatives undeterred by the Ethical Requirements that are imposed by law on all Adjusters. Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. (3) explicitly states the adjustment of insurance claims engage the trust of the public, and therefore, an adjuster has a duty of fair and honest treatment of the insured throughout the insurance claim process. Several duties and responsibilities to the Insured were violated in the handling of this claim, which are specifically listed responsibilities of an Adjuster in the Florida Administrative Code. These breached duties and responsibilities include adjusters from Frontline approaching the investigation and settlement in a manner prejudicial to the Insureds, failing to allow a fair settlement with the Insureds, and acting with due diligence in achieving a proper disposition of the claim. In contrast to the legislative intent motivating the enumeration of an Adjuster’s responsibilities outlined in the Administrative Code, the Insureds were not afforded the professional duties entrusted on Frontline by the public. To date, Frontline has failed to adequately compensate the Insured for the damage that occurred on September 28, 2022, despite having months to pay the Insureds’ claim in full. As a direct result of Frontline’s delay, the Insured was forced to seek the help of legal counsel to assist them. Due to the amount of time that has passed since the date of loss, this acknowledgement is evidence that Frontline knowingly and intentionally are delaying the claims process in order to further disadvantage the Insureds. The financial detriment caused to the Insured and his tenants is a direct result of Frontline’s reckless delay of the claim process. This notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, should Frontline fail to cure the violations set forth in this Civil Remedy Notice within the given cure period. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, Frontline must: (1) Immediately tender the $84,307.03, due and owing to the Insured under the insurance policy that would reasonably place the Insured back to a pre-loss condition; (2) Agree to reimburse the Insured’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for having to become involved to resolve the claim; (3) Agree to reimburse the Insured for interest on the amount of benefits that was found to be due and owing to the Insured, relating back to the date of loss.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
Jamie@bcflalaw.com 01-20-2025 January 20, 2025 VIA EMAIL: Diego Garcia c/o Hope Platt, Esq. Weisser Elazar & Kantor, PLLC 800 East Broward Boulevard Suite 510 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 HBP@weklaw.com RE: Policyholder: Diego Garcia Claim Number: 01000075510 Policy Number: 4413969153 CRN Filing Number: 794480 Dear Ms. Platt: This is the formal response of First Protective Insurance Company D/B/A Frontline Insurance (“Frontline”) to the purported Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (“Purported Notice”) that was filed on behalf of Diego Garcia. The Florida Department of Financial Services accepted the Purported Notice, in form only, on November 27, 2024. The Purported Notice was filed in connection with Diego Garcia’s insurance claim for property damage. The Purported Notice names Frontline and alleges claim denial, claim delay, and unsatisfactory settlement offer supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(2), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h), and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i), Florida Statutes. The Purported Notice is a legal nullity for the five reasons discussed below. Frontline reserves all (and waives none) of its rights or defenses, including its right to assert additional deficiencies in the Purported Notice. Under Section 624.155(3), Florida Statutes, a claimant must file a notice with the Florida Department of Financial Services (“the Department”) at least 60 days before filing a Statutory “bad faith” lawsuit. This notice is commonly referred to as a “civil remedy notice” (“CRN”). Section 624.155(3), Florida Statutes sets out five pieces of information which must be included in a CRN: 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; and 5. A statement that the notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section. The statute also provides that, in addition to these five requirements, the CRN shall be “on a form provided by the [Department] and shall state with specificity . . . such other information as the department may require.” (emphasis added); The Florida Supreme Court has held that Section 624.155, Florida Statutes “must be strictly construed.” Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1283 (Fla. 2000). Strict construction is appropriate as “this statute is in derogation of the common law.” Id. When interpreting a statute in derogation of the common law, “[a] court will presume that such a statute was not intended to alter the common law other than as clearly and plainly specified in the statute.” Time Ins. Co., Inc. v. Burger, 712 So. 2d 389, 393 (Fla. 1998). Accordingly, such an interpretation would mean that statutory bad faith cases cannot proceed unless the claimant has specifically complied will all statutory requirements. After the promulgation of this statute, the Department created a CRN form: Form DFS-10-363. Form DFS-10-363 lays out 15 requirements: 1. Complainants Name; 2. Complainants Address; 3. Complainants E-mail address; 4. Complainant type (Insured or otherwise); 5. Insured’s Name; 6. Insurance Policy Number; 7. Insurance Claim Number; 8. Attorney’s Name; 9. Attorney’s Address; 10. Attorney’s E-mail Address; 11. Type of Insurer (authorized or otherwise); 12. Name of Insurer; 13. Address of Insurer; 14. Type of Insurance (Commercial Property & Casualty or otherwise); and 15. Reason for Notice. As these requirements are all information required by the Department, according to Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, they each must be stated with specificity. Deficiency #1 The Purported Notice fails to state the Address of Insurer, as required by Form DFS-10-363. As the applicable statute requires that all fields on the CRN form must be stated with specificity, and as this statute is strictly construed, the above-referenced deficiency independently nullifies the Purported Notice. This deficiency applies to all allegations in the Purported Notice, including but not limited to claim denial, claim delay, and unsatisfactory settlement offer supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(2), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h), and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i), Florida Statutes. Deficiency #2 Section 624.155(3)(b)(2), Florida Statutes, requires that the CRN state with specificity the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation. The Purported Notice does not supply specific facts or circumstances that explain the allegations. Rather, the Purported Notice contains multiple incorrect facts and baseless allegations. For example, the Purported Notice states: “The Insured timely notified Frontline of the damages and opened a claim pursuant to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.” However, the Purported Notice fails to address Mr. Garcia’s material breaches of the policy, including but not limited to, Mr. Garcia’s failure to provide immediate notice of the claim and to show the alleged damaged property. The claim was reported to Frontline at least five (5) days after the alleged loss, which prejudiced Frontline’s investigation because Frontline was not given the opportunity to inspect the alleged damage around the time of the alleged loss. In addition, materials had been altered prior to Frontline’s inspection and Mr. Garcia did not allow access to all interior rooms during the field adjuster’s inspection. Furthermore, Mr. Garcia materially breached the policy by failing to provide all documents requested by Defendant during the claim investigation. Mr. Garcia also failed to protect the property from further damage. The tarp that was present on Plaintiff’s roof at the time of the field adjuster’s inspection was attached using nails. Moreover, the Purported Notice intentionally misstates the engineer’s findings. The engineer specifically opined that there was no wind-related damage to the roof except for a partially missing bottom half of a top laminate shingle tab and displacement of the attic access portal and trim molding. They attributed the remaining roof damage to weathering, installation defects, age-related deterioration, and deferred maintenance. In addition, the engineer concluded that the moisture damage to the east and west gable walls, east bedroom closet ceiling, southeast bedroom ceiling, kitchen ceiling, and garage ceiling was caused by long-term rainwater intrusion. The engineer attributed the long-term rainwater intrusion to deferred maintenance, faulty installation, and poor workmanship. Further, the engineer attributed the garage door damage to occupant use. The Purported Notice also fails to explain how the purported facts contained therein constitute violations of Florida law. Thus, the Purported Notice is invalid for noncompliance with Section 624.155(3)(b)(2), Florida Statutes. This deficiency applies to all allegations in the Purported Notice, including but not limited to claim denial, claim delay, and unsatisfactory settlement offer supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(2), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h), and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i), Florida Statutes. Deficiency #3 Section 624.155(3)(b)(4), Florida Statutes, requires the CRN to reference 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. Your client is not a third-party claimant; therefore, the Purported Notice must include specific language from the subject policy that is relevant to the alleged violations. It does not. Rather, the Purported Notice broadly states the Duties After Loss, Perils Insured Against, and Exclusions provisions of the policy. Thus, the Purported Notice is invalid for noncompliance with Section 624.155(3)(b)(4), Florida Statutes. This deficiency applies to all allegations in the Purported Notice, including but not limited to claim denial, claim delay, and unsatisfactory settlement offer supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(2), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h), and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i), Florida Statutes. On March 3, 2021, the Fourth District Court of Appeal issued a relevant opinion in Junior Julien v. United Property and Casualty Insurance Company, No. 4D19-2763. In Julien, the insured appealed the circuit court’s dismissal of his lawsuit against his insurer, finding that the insured’s Civil Remedy Notice (“CRN”) failed to satisfy the statutory requirement that an insured “state with specificity” the policy language and the statutory provisions at issue. In his CRN, the insured cited numerous statutory provisions and listed nearly every provision in the insurance policy. On appeal, the Fourth District affirmed the dismissal and agreed with the circuit court that the CRN failed to specify the statutory and policy provisions at issue. Like the CRN in Julien, the Purported Notice fails to “state with specificity” the policy language at issue. Deficiency #4 The Purported Notice does not supply necessary information that would allow Frontline to “cure” the alleged violations, as required by Florida law. In Talat Enter., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1283 (Fla. 2000), the Florida Supreme Court stated that alleged statutory violations may be “cured,” in the context of a first-party insurance claim, by payment of “the contractual amount due the insured” within the 60 days following the acceptance of a valid notice. The Purported Notice makes a series of vague, immeasurable demands regarding “reimburse the Insureds reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs,” and “reimburse the Insureds for interest on the amount of benefits that was found to be due and owing to the Insured,” but does not tell Frontline what amount your client would accept as a “cure.” This deficiency applies to all allegations in the Purported Notice, including but not limited to claim denial, claim delay, and unsatisfactory settlement offer supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(2), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h), and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i), Florida Statutes. Deficiency #5 Finally, the Purported Notice improperly demands that Frontline pay attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest. In Talat, the Florida Supreme Court adopted the following analysis by United States Magistrate Judge Glazebrook: The Court rejects as unsupported Talat's contention that the insurer must not only pay the claim within the sixty-day window, but must also pay all compensatory damages that flow from any delay in settling the claim. Section 624.155 does not impose on an insurer the obligation to pay whatever the insured demands. The sixty-day window is designed to be a cure period that will encourage payment of the underlying claim, and avoid unnecessary bad faith litigation. Surely an insurer need not immediately pay 100% of the damages claimed to flow from bad faith conduct in order to avoid the chance that the insured will succeed on a bad faith cause of action. If the insurer may avoid a bad faith action only by paying in advance every penny of the damages that it faces if it loses at trial, the insurer would have no reason to pay. Furthermore, few insureds would restrict their demands to compensatory damages. There is no reason why insureds would not demand also the advance payment of punitive damages and attorney's fees. Section 624.155(2)(d) would have no effect or purpose under such an interpretation. The law does not support such an expansive and illogical reading of Fla. Stat. Ann. § 624.155(2)(d). See Talat, 753 So. 2d 1278, at 1282 (emphasis added). As noted by Judge Glazebrook and the Florida Supreme Court, Section 624.155, Florida Statutes does not contemplate attorney fee, costs, or interest liability in Civil Remedy Notices. Thus, the Purported Notice is invalid. This deficiency applies to all allegations in the Purported Notice, including but not limited to claim denial, claim delay, and unsatisfactory settlement offer supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(2), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h), and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i), Florida Statutes. Notwithstanding the deficiencies in, and the invalidity of, the Purported Notice, Frontline denies any wrongdoing. It specifically denies that it violated the insurance policy or Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Purported Notice. Please be advised, by this letter, Frontline neither waives, nor is estopped, from asserting any and all rights it may have in law, or, under the terms of the policy. In fact, Frontline hereby again, expressly, and specifically, reserves all of its rights, without exception or limitation. If you have any questions or concerns with this response, or, regarding any other matter, please contact me in writing. Sincerely, /s/ Brian D. Orsborn Brian D. Orsborn BICKFORD & CHIDNESE, LLP 1860 N. Avenida Republica de Cuba Tampa, FL 33605 (813) 771-6559 Brian@bcflalaw.com
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