Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     794535
Filing Accepted:  11/27/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
URREGO   First Name   MARIA
Street Address * 442 CART CT
City, State Zip * KISSIMMEE, FL 34759
Email Address * PF@WEKLAW.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   URREGO   First Name   MARIA
Policy # * P000308417 Claim #* 234321
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* FERNANDEZ First Name * PATRICIA Initial
Street Address* 800 E BROWARD BLVD, SUITE 510
City, State Zip* FORT LAUDERDALE , FL 33301
Email Address * PF@WEKLAW.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10117
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* WYLIE BARRIENTOS
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
Claim Delay
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Unfair Trade Practice
* 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)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information.
* 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 –EXCLUSIONS 2. 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 excluded or excepted in this policy is covered. a. Weather conditions. However, this exclusion only applies if weather conditions contribute in any way with a cause or event excluded in paragraph 1. above to produce the loss; b. Acts or decisions, including the failure to act or decide, of any person, group, organization or governmental body; c. Faulty, inadequate or defective: SFI FL HO3 03 20 Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc., with its permission. Page 17 of 31 (1) Planning, zoning, development, surveying, siting; (2) Design, specifications, workmanship, repair, construction, renovation, remodeling, grading, compaction; (3) Materials used in repair, construction, renovation or remodeling; or (4) Maintenance; of part or all of any property whether on or off the "residence premises." SECTION I – PERILS INSURED AGAINST COVERAGE A – DWELLING and COVERAGE B – OTHER STRUCTURES We insure against risk of direct loss to property described in Coverages A and B only if that loss is a physical loss to property. We do not insure, however, for loss: 2. Caused by: g. Rain, snow, sleet, sand or dust to the interior of a building unless a covered peril first damages the building causing an opening in a roof or outside wall, door or window and the rain, snow, sleet, sand or dust enters through this opening. This exclusion applies unless the damage is caused during a “hurricane loss”; h. Any of the following: (1) Inherent vice, latent defect, mechanical breakdown; (2) Smog, rust or other corrosion, “fungi”, mold, wet or dry rot; (3) Smoke from agricultural smudging or industrial operations; (4) Discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape of “pollutants” unless the discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape is itself caused by a Peril Insured Against under Coverage C of this policy. (5) Settling, shrinking, bulging or expansion, including resultant cracking, of pavements, patios, foundations, walls, floors, roofs or ceilings; (6) Birds, vermin, rodents, marsupials, animals, reptiles, fish, insects, or pests, including but not limited to, termites, snails, squirrels, racoons, opossums, armadillos, flies, bed bugs, lice, ticks, locusts, cockroaches, ants, bats, bees, wasps and fleas; Wear and tear, marring, deterioration; (7) Animals owned or kept by an "insured"; or (8) Pressure from or presence of tree, shrub, or plant roots If any of these cause water damage not otherwise excluded or limited elsewhere in the policy, from a plumbing, heating, air conditioning or automatic fire protective sprinkler system or household appliance, we cover loss caused by the water, including the cost to tear out and repair only that part or portion of a building or other structure covered under Coverage A or B, on the “residence premises”, necessary to access the system or appliance.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Maria Urrego ("Insured") purchased an insurance policy ("Policy") from Security First Insurance Company ("Security First" or “Carrier”) with effective coverage on the date of loss, on or about July 30, 2022, and Policy number P000308417 to insure their property located at 442 Cart Ct., Kissimmee, FL 34759 (the "Property").?? On or about July 30, 2022, the Property sustained damage as a result of wind which caused ensuing water damage to the Property, including but not limited to the roof, living room, master bedroom, and patio ("Loss"). Security First was notified of the Loss immediately upon discovery and was granted access to the property in order to complete their inspection. Security First acknowledged the claim and assigned claim number? 234321 ("Claim") to the Loss. Security First inspected the subject property and determined that the roof was damaged by a covered peril, but denied payment for the interior damages. Security First’s coverage determination are illogical and it’s obvious that Security First is intentionally trying to avoid paying what is rightfully owed to the Insured pursuant to the insurance policy for which they paid premiums. After being provided plenty of evidence (including photos, estimates, access to the property, and proof of mitigation efforts) showing that wind caused damage to the roof and interior of the property that will require repairs, Security First continues to refuse to provide additional money in order to begin these repairs. Security First has the resources to repair this home, based in part off of the premiums that the Insureds have been paying, but instead forced the Insureds to pursue legal recourses for the money due under the contract of insurance. The Insured has fully complied with all applicable Policy provisions requiring cooperation with the?investigation;?however, Security First has unequivocally failed to properly adjust this Claim, as further elaborated above. Rather than paying the actual damages and/or trying to settle with the Insured, Security First has continued its pre-suit failures to act in good faith into litigation by delaying the prompt resolution of the claim. Security First has not attempted, in good faith, to settle this claim when, under the circumstances, it could and should have done so had it acted fairly and honestly toward the policyholder and with due regard to the policyholder's interests.? Rather, Security First has acted with only its own profit and shareholders in mind. As a direct consequence of Security First’s failure to adjust this Loss in good faith and make any supplemental payment, the Insureds continue to be without adequate compensation for the damages sustained at the Insureds’ Property more than a year ago and has been forced to continue to live in a water damaged property.?? By stating the above detailed?facts,?it is clear that Security First has violated the following Florida statutes:? • 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 Insureds and with due regard for their interest. • 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)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information; To date, Security First has acted in bad faith failed to provide sufficient coverage under the Policy to the Insureds. The Insureds’ property continues to be in disarray as the Insureds are without the funds to put their property back to its pre-loss condition. As a direct result of Security First’s underpayment of the Claim and breach of the Florida Statutes, the Insureds were forced to retain legal counsel.?Due to the amount of time that has passed since the date of loss and the information discussed above, there is irrefutable evidence that Security First knowingly and intentionally, and in bad faith, delayed the settlement process in order to further disadvantage the Insureds. The financial detriment caused to the Insureds is a direct result of Security First’s reckless treatment of the claims process. The Insureds submitted all documents requested in a timely fashion, made their property available for inspection after the discovery of the loss, submitted an estimate, mitigated their damages, and satisfied all requests. However, Security First failed at every step of the process to adequately establish or identify the basis of its gross mismanagement of the claim.? To deny the Insureds the benefit clearly due and owing under the Policy, for which they have time and time again been making premium payments for and after they have satisfied all of their obligations is morally and ethically reprehensible, and reeks of Unfair Claims Practice and Bad Faith. Upon information and belief, the aforementioned actions complained of, among others, were made by Security First so often?as to constitute a general business practice, evidencing a motive to enhance Security First’s profits, and designed to cause a detrimental effect to its policyholders. The above clearly depicts that Security First adjusted this claim in bad faith, continue to act in bad faith towards its Insureds, and that Security First is in direct violation of Unfair Claims Practices.?? This notice is given to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, should Security First 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, Security First must: (1) Immediately tender all proceeds due and owing to the Insureds that are fairly owed to the Insureds under the insurance policy that would reasonably compensate the Insureds in order to put the loss property back to its pre-loss condition; (2) Agree to reimburse the Insureds' reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for having to become involved to resolve the claim; and (3) Agree to reimburse the Insureds 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
john.mcmillen@securityfirstflorida.com 12-28-2024 Amended as to correction of named insured under section 'I. Perfecting a Claim for Bad Faith' PROCESSING CENTER: P.O. BOX 105651 ATLANTA, GA 30348-5651 Via Electronic Filing: Florida Department of Financial Services Bureau of Consumer Assistance c/o: Civil Remedy Section Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0322 Via Email: Patricia Fernandez, Esq. 800 E. Broward Blvd, Suite 510, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 PF@WEKLaw.com Re: CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE OF INSURER VIOLATION Filing No.: 794535 Insured: Maria Urrego Insurer: Security First Insurance Company Claim No.: 234321 Policy No.: P000308417 Date of Loss: 09/28/2022 Dear Sir or Madam: This correspondence is in response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (hereinafter referred to as the “CRN”) was filed by Patricia Fernandez on behalf of her client, Maria Urrego (hereinafter referred to as “Insured”). Please be advised that the undersigned represents the interests of Security First Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as “Security First”) with respect to the above-referenced matter. The Florida Department of Financial Services (hereinafter referred to as “Department”) assigned this CRN an acceptance date of 11/27/2024 and DFS File No.: 794535. This matter concerns a property damage claim made by the Insured pursuant to a homeowners’ insurance policy provided by Security First Policy No. P000308417 and assigned Claim No. 234321. As the basis for filing the CRN against Security First, Maria Urrego asserts in the “Reasons for Notice” section violations such as Claim Denial, Claim Delay, Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer and Unfair Trade Practice, along with the following statutory violations: 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)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims, 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigation based upon available information. It should be noted that this CRN is deficient as it lists Maria Urrego as the only Complainant and not all of the policy holders and/or indispensable parties for this policy, i.e. Kenneth J Dowe Jr, are not listed. The CRN is also deficient as it does not include a specific dollar amount that will cure the CRN. Security First welcomes this opportunity to respond to the CRN and denies each allegation contained therein. The allegations made in the CRN are premature, as the insured has failed to perfect the claim for bad faith and the CRN does not meet the specificity requirement of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. This CRN does not sufficiently support the allegations stated above. As is standard procedure, upon the first notice of the claim, the subject property was dutifully inspected by an SFIC representative, which was documented through photographs. Security First Insurance Company inspected by a field adjuster and JCM Roofing & Restoration on October 03, 2022 and Hydroscout Leak Detection on November 28, 2022. Security First extended coverage to replace the roof shingles, low slope rear roof and gutters by JCM Roofing (completed on March 27, 2023) and, per the leak detection report, the interior and back porch damages were declined as they were not caused by the peril claimed in this claim. Security First issued a coverage determination letter on December 26, 2022 that explains the same. Also, on February 21, 2023, Security First issued a payment of $2,650.92 for tarping the roof to Skylight Roofing. Ms Urrego’s Public Adjuster then submitted an excessive estimate in the amount of $72,083.67 for review. Pre-suit mediation was conducted on July 20, 2023 and SFI extended a $7,500.00 settlement offer that was accepted during the mediation, but later the acceptance was withdrawn by the Public Adjuster. WEK Law then filed a NOITL on October 12, 2023. Security First then extended a pre-suit offer of $10,000.00 to reach an amicable agreement prior to litigation being filed. That offer was not accepted. I. Perfecting a Claim for Bad Faith SFIC specifically denies all allegations set forth in the Notice. SFIC contends that the Notice should be rejected and returned by the Department of Financial Services as it is premature. Pursuant to statute, there is no potential violation until a breach of contract is established. § 624.1551, Florida Statutes. Accordingly, any Notice filed prior to a finding that SFIC has breached the terms of the policy, is not ripe and is premature and thus fails to perfect Maria Urrego rights to pursue civil remedies under Florida Statutes. II. Specificity Requirement The Insured’s CRN violates multiple requirements set forth in the Florida courts’ jurisprudence for Civil Remedy Notices. In addition, it fails to meet even the most basic requirements of the Statute. Pursuant to the terms of the statute, (3)(a) As a condition precedent to bringing an action under this section, the department and the authorized insurer must have been given 60 days’ written notice of the violations. Notice to the authorized insurer must be provided by the department to the e-mail address designated by the insurer under s. 624.422. a. The 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 (emphasis added): b. (3)(a) As a condition precedent to bringing an action under this section, the department and the authorized insurer must have been given 60 days’ written notice of the violations. Notice to the authorized insurer must be provided by the department to the e-mail address designated by the insurer under s. 624.422. i. The statutory provision, including the specific language of the statute, which the authorized insurer allegedly violated. ii. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation. iii. The name of any individual involved in the violation. iv. 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. v. A statement that the notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section. In interpreting this statute, courts have emphasized the importance of filing specific civil remedy notices. The civil remedy notice is “crucial to the procedural integrity of an action” under the Statute. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Clohessy, 32 F.Supp.2d 1328, 1333 (M.D. Fla. 1998). “It is, without a doubt, a condition that must be satisfied in order for one to perfect the right to sue under the statute.” Id. “In creating this statutory remedy for bad- faith actions, the Legislature provided this sixty-day window as a last opportunity for insurers to comply with their claim-handling obligations when a good-faith decision by the insurer would indicate that contractual benefits are owed.” Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 2000). Thus, the Notice cannot be “vague and ‘shotgun’ in nature,” rather than “the type of specific notice required by the statute that would allow [the insurer] an opportunity to cure.” Heritage Corp. of South Florida v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 580 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1299 (S.D. Fla. 2008). Because it is in derogation of the common law, Section 624.155(1)(b), Florida Statutes must be strictly construed. Talat, 753 So. 2d at 1283 (citing Baxter v. Royal Indem. Co., 285 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). To perfect the right to sue under the statute, the insured must specifically notify the insured of any and all alleged violations claimed. Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 952 F.Supp. 773, 776 (M.D. Fla. 1996) (“Talat I”) See Fox v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., No. 8:16-CV-3254-T-23MAP, 2017 WL 1541294, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2017) (sufficiency means specificity). In Junior Julien v. United Property and Casualty Insurance Company, 311 So.3d 875, 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021), the Honorable Court stated: The Middle District of Florida was confronted with a civil remedy notice that was similarly broad in scope and concluded that listing nearly all policy provisions on the notice did not satisfy the statute. Fox v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., No. 8:16-CV-3254-T-23MAP, 2017 WL 1541294, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2017). The court explained that “[i]f the statute contained no specificity requirement, [then] the [insureds’] casual ‘reference’ to the entire insurance policy undoubtedly would suffice.” Id. But, the court continued, “the Legislature included ‘specific’ or a variant not once but twice in the statute.” Id. As a result, the insureds’ listing of whole sections of the insurance policy “appear[ed] to lack specificity.” Id. In Valenti, the District Court for the Middle District of Florida considered the practical consequences of an insured’s non-specific civil remedy notice. Valenti v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America, 2006 WL 1627276 (M.D. Fla. 2006). The plaintiff’s civil remedy notice included allegations that the defendant conducted an inadequate investigation. The plaintiff, however, failed to identify with the requisite specificity the defendant’s actions that were inadequate. The Middle District held that the plaintiff’s civil remedy notice was insufficient, and stated the following: [T]he civil remedy notice must be specific enough to provide insurers notice of the wrongdoing so the insurer can cure the same within sixty days. … Plaintiffs’ counsel, during the hearing in this matter, argued a civil remedy notice that states “you denied my claim” should be sufficient to place the insurer on notice of what was needed to be cured. Plaintiffs’ counsel further argued that it was up to the insurer, as the insurance expert, to decipher what actions needed to be cured. This argument, in this Court's estimation, is illogical and is counter to the purpose of the civil remedy notice. If a simple “you denied my claim” was sufficient to put insurers on notice, the sixty-day cure period would be little more than a guessing game with the insurer attempting to correctly guess what errors the insured claimed it made in the claims handling process, or risk defending a bad faith action. This surely is not what the legislature had in mind when it created the civil remedy notice. Accordingly, this Court finds that Plaintiffs allegation that Defendant failed to conduct an adequate investigation is insufficient to provide Defendant an opportunity to cure. Id. at *2. The guidance for an insured could not be more clear. “The purpose of the civil remedy notice is to give the insurer one last chance to settle a claim with its insured and avoid unnecessary bad faith litigation.” Lane v. Westfield Insurance Co., 862 So. 2d 774, 779 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Its purpose is not “to give the insured a right of action to proceed against the insurer even after the insured’s claim has been paid or resolved.” Id. Ultimately, conclusory allegations without facts fail to perfect a statutory bad faith claim. Merely alleging the bare minimum allegations is insufficient pursuant to Florida courts’ interpretations of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. III. Conclusion At all times, Security First has acted in good faith in its handling of the claim and it has acted fairly, honestly, and with due regard for the Insured’s interest and in determining obligations to Insured. Specifically, Security First has complied with its obligations under the applicable Florida Statutes and the applicable Security First Insurance policy. Security First specifically denies any claim for bad faith and argues that the insured’s claim for bad faith is premature. Security First continues to reserve all its rights under the policy, at law and in equity. Regardless, Insured’s conclusory allegations fail to place Security First on notice of any purported violations. Furthermore, the Civil Remedy Notice fails to identify how to cure the allegations set forth. The allegations are without basis. It is clear Security First properly handled and adequately investigated the claim. We hope that this response has answered any concerns regarding this matter. If the Department has any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, /s/ John J.P. McMillen John J.P. McMillen, Esquire Florida Bar No: 676802 Attorney for the Defendant Security First Insurance Company 1001 Broadway Avenue Ormond Beach, Florida 32714 John.McMillen@securityfirstflorida.com Telephone Number: (386) 868-4769
john.mcmillen@securityfirstflorida.com 12-28-2024 PROCESSING CENTER: P.O. BOX 105651 ATLANTA, GA 30348-5651 Via Electronic Filing: Florida Department of Financial Services Bureau of Consumer Assistance c/o: Civil Remedy Section Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0322 Via Email: Patricia Fernandez, Esq. 800 E. Broward Blvd, Suite 510, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 PF@WEKLaw.com Re: CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE OF INSURER VIOLATION Filing No.: 794535 Insured: Maria Urrego Insurer: Security First Insurance Company Claim No.: 234321 Policy No.: P000308417 Date of Loss: 09/28/2022 Dear Sir or Madam: This correspondence is in response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (hereinafter referred to as the “CRN”) was filed by Patricia Fernandez on behalf of her client, Maria Urrego (hereinafter referred to as “Insured”). Please be advised that the undersigned represents the interests of Security First Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as “Security First”) with respect to the above-referenced matter. The Florida Department of Financial Services (hereinafter referred to as “Department”) assigned this CRN an acceptance date of 11/27/2024 and DFS File No.: 794535. This matter concerns a property damage claim made by the Insured pursuant to a homeowners’ insurance policy provided by Security First Policy No. P000308417 and assigned Claim No. 234321. As the basis for filing the CRN against Security First, Maria Urrego asserts in the “Reasons for Notice” section violations such as Claim Denial, Claim Delay, Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer and Unfair Trade Practice, along with the following statutory violations: 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)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims, 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigation based upon available information. It should be noted that this CRN is deficient as it lists Maria Urrego as the only Complainant and not all of the policy holders and/or indispensable parties for this policy, i.e. Kenneth J Dowe Jr, are not listed. The CRN is also deficient as it does not include a specific dollar amount that will cure the CRN. Security First welcomes this opportunity to respond to the CRN and denies each allegation contained therein. The allegations made in the CRN are premature, as the insured has failed to perfect the claim for bad faith and the CRN does not meet the specificity requirement of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. This CRN does not sufficiently support the allegations stated above. As is standard procedure, upon the first notice of the claim, the subject property was dutifully inspected by an SFIC representative, which was documented through photographs. Security First Insurance Company inspected by a field adjuster and JCM Roofing & Restoration on October 03, 2022 and Hydroscout Leak Detection on November 28, 2022. Security First extended coverage to replace the roof shingles, low slope rear roof and gutters by JCM Roofing (completed on March 27, 2023) and, per the leak detection report, the interior and back porch damages were declined as they were not caused by the peril claimed in this claim. Security First issued a coverage determination letter on December 26, 2022 that explains the same. Also, on February 21, 2023, Security First issued a payment of $2,650.92 for tarping the roof to Skylight Roofing. Ms Urrego’s Public Adjuster then submitted an excessive estimate in the amount of $72,083.67 for review. Pre-suit mediation was conducted on July 20, 2023 and SFI extended a $7,500.00 settlement offer that was accepted during the mediation, but later the acceptance was withdrawn by the Public Adjuster. WEK Law then filed a NOITL on October 12, 2023. Security First then extended a pre-suit offer of $10,000.00 to reach an amicable agreement prior to litigation being filed. That offer was not accepted. I. Perfecting a Claim for Bad Faith SFIC specifically denies all allegations set forth in the Notice. SFIC contends that the Notice should be rejected and returned by the Department of Financial Services as it is premature. Pursuant to statute, there is no potential violation until a breach of contract is established. § 624.1551, Florida Statutes. Accordingly, any Notice filed prior to a finding that SFIC has breached the terms of the policy, is not ripe and is premature and thus fails to perfect Robert and Patricia Mazzaro rights to pursue civil remedies under Florida Statutes. II. Specificity Requirement The Insured’s CRN violates multiple requirements set forth in the Florida courts’ jurisprudence for Civil Remedy Notices. In addition, it fails to meet even the most basic requirements of the Statute. Pursuant to the terms of the statute, (3)(a) As a condition precedent to bringing an action under this section, the department and the authorized insurer must have been given 60 days’ written notice of the violations. Notice to the authorized insurer must be provided by the department to the e-mail address designated by the insurer under s. 624.422. a. The 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 (emphasis added): b. (3)(a) As a condition precedent to bringing an action under this section, the department and the authorized insurer must have been given 60 days’ written notice of the violations. Notice to the authorized insurer must be provided by the department to the e-mail address designated by the insurer under s. 624.422. i. The statutory provision, including the specific language of the statute, which the authorized insurer allegedly violated. ii. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation. iii. The name of any individual involved in the violation. iv. 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. v. A statement that the notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section. In interpreting this statute, courts have emphasized the importance of filing specific civil remedy notices. The civil remedy notice is “crucial to the procedural integrity of an action” under the Statute. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Clohessy, 32 F.Supp.2d 1328, 1333 (M.D. Fla. 1998). “It is, without a doubt, a condition that must be satisfied in order for one to perfect the right to sue under the statute.” Id. “In creating this statutory remedy for bad- faith actions, the Legislature provided this sixty-day window as a last opportunity for insurers to comply with their claim-handling obligations when a good-faith decision by the insurer would indicate that contractual benefits are owed.” Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 2000). Thus, the Notice cannot be “vague and ‘shotgun’ in nature,” rather than “the type of specific notice required by the statute that would allow [the insurer] an opportunity to cure.” Heritage Corp. of South Florida v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 580 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1299 (S.D. Fla. 2008). Because it is in derogation of the common law, Section 624.155(1)(b), Florida Statutes must be strictly construed. Talat, 753 So. 2d at 1283 (citing Baxter v. Royal Indem. Co., 285 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). To perfect the right to sue under the statute, the insured must specifically notify the insured of any and all alleged violations claimed. Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 952 F.Supp. 773, 776 (M.D. Fla. 1996) (“Talat I”) See Fox v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., No. 8:16-CV-3254-T-23MAP, 2017 WL 1541294, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2017) (sufficiency means specificity). In Junior Julien v. United Property and Casualty Insurance Company, 311 So.3d 875, 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021), the Honorable Court stated: The Middle District of Florida was confronted with a civil remedy notice that was similarly broad in scope and concluded that listing nearly all policy provisions on the notice did not satisfy the statute. Fox v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., No. 8:16-CV-3254-T-23MAP, 2017 WL 1541294, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2017). The court explained that “[i]f the statute contained no specificity requirement, [then] the [insureds’] casual ‘reference’ to the entire insurance policy undoubtedly would suffice.” Id. But, the court continued, “the Legislature included ‘specific’ or a variant not once but twice in the statute.” Id. As a result, the insureds’ listing of whole sections of the insurance policy “appear[ed] to lack specificity.” Id. In Valenti, the District Court for the Middle District of Florida considered the practical consequences of an insured’s non-specific civil remedy notice. Valenti v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America, 2006 WL 1627276 (M.D. Fla. 2006). The plaintiff’s civil remedy notice included allegations that the defendant conducted an inadequate investigation. The plaintiff, however, failed to identify with the requisite specificity the defendant’s actions that were inadequate. The Middle District held that the plaintiff’s civil remedy notice was insufficient, and stated the following: [T]he civil remedy notice must be specific enough to provide insurers notice of the wrongdoing so the insurer can cure the same within sixty days. … Plaintiffs’ counsel, during the hearing in this matter, argued a civil remedy notice that states “you denied my claim” should be sufficient to place the insurer on notice of what was needed to be cured. Plaintiffs’ counsel further argued that it was up to the insurer, as the insurance expert, to decipher what actions needed to be cured. This argument, in this Court's estimation, is illogical and is counter to the purpose of the civil remedy notice. If a simple “you denied my claim” was sufficient to put insurers on notice, the sixty-day cure period would be little more than a guessing game with the insurer attempting to correctly guess what errors the insured claimed it made in the claims handling process, or risk defending a bad faith action. This surely is not what the legislature had in mind when it created the civil remedy notice. Accordingly, this Court finds that Plaintiffs allegation that Defendant failed to conduct an adequate investigation is insufficient to provide Defendant an opportunity to cure. Id. at *2. The guidance for an insured could not be more clear. “The purpose of the civil remedy notice is to give the insurer one last chance to settle a claim with its insured and avoid unnecessary bad faith litigation.” Lane v. Westfield Insurance Co., 862 So. 2d 774, 779 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Its purpose is not “to give the insured a right of action to proceed against the insurer even after the insured’s claim has been paid or resolved.” Id. Ultimately, conclusory allegations without facts fail to perfect a statutory bad faith claim. Merely alleging the bare minimum allegations is insufficient pursuant to Florida courts’ interpretations of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. III. Conclusion At all times, Security First has acted in good faith in its handling of the claim and it has acted fairly, honestly, and with due regard for the Insured’s interest and in determining obligations to Insured. Specifically, Security First has complied with its obligations under the applicable Florida Statutes and the applicable Security First Insurance policy. Security First specifically denies any claim for bad faith and argues that the insured’s claim for bad faith is premature. Security First continues to reserve all its rights under the policy, at law and in equity. Regardless, Insured’s conclusory allegations fail to place Security First on notice of any purported violations. Furthermore, the Civil Remedy Notice fails to identify how to cure the allegations set forth. The allegations are without basis. It is clear Security First properly handled and adequately investigated the claim. We hope that this response has answered any concerns regarding this matter. If the Department has any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, /s/ John J.P. McMillen John J.P. McMillen, Esquire Florida Bar No: 676802 Attorney for the Defendant Security First Insurance Company 1001 Broadway Avenue Ormond Beach, Florida 32714 John.McMillen@securityfirstflorida.com Telephone Number: (386) 868-4769
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