Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     794571
Filing Accepted:  11/27/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
SMITH   First Name   BOBBY
Street Address * 4884 SW ELIM CHURCH RD
City, State Zip * LAKE CITY, FL 32024
Email Address * PF@WEKLAW.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   SMITH   First Name   BOBBY
Policy # * SJ31046766 Claim #* SL23205103
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*   SLIDE INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 17227
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* CANDACE CORLEY AND CLAYTON GREEN
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)(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)(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)(g) Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

C. Loss Settlement In this Condition C., the terms "cost to repair or replace" and "replacement cost" do not include the increased costs incurred to comply with the enforcement of any ordinance or law, except to the extent that coverage for these increased costs is provided in E.11. Ordinance Or Law under Section I – Property Coverages. Covered property losses are settled as follows: 1. Property of the following types: a. Personal property; b. Awnings, carpeting, household appliances, outdoor antennas and outdoor equipment, whether or not attached to buildings; c. Structures that are not buildings; and d. Grave markers, including mausoleums; at actual cash value at the time of loss but not more than the amount required to repair or replace. 2. Buildings covered under Coverage A or B at replacement cost without deduction for depreciation, subject to the following: a. If, at the time of loss, the amount of insurance in this policy on the damaged building is 80% or more of the full replacement cost of the building immediately before the loss, we will pay the cost to repair or replace, after application of any deductible and without deduction for depreciation, but not more than the least of the following amounts: (1) The limit of liability under this policy that applies to the building; (2) The replacement cost of that part of the building damaged with material of like kind and quality and for like use; or (3) The necessary amount actually spent to repair or replace the damaged building. If the building is rebuilt at a new premises, the cost described in (2) above is limited to the cost which would have been incurred if the building had been built at the original premises. b. If, at the time of loss, the amount of insurance in this policy on the damaged building is less than 80% of the full replacement cost of the building immediately before the loss, we will pay the greater of the following amounts, but not more than the limit of liability under this policy that applies to the building: (1) The actual cash value of that part of the building damaged; or (2) That proportion of the cost to repair or replace, after application of any deductible and without deduction for depreciation, that part of the building damaged, which the total amount of insurance in this policy on the damaged building bears to 80% of the replacement cost of the building. c. To determine the amount of insurance required to equal 80% of the full replacement cost of the building immediately before the loss, do not include the value of: (1) Excavations, footings, foundations, piers, or any other structures or devices that support all or part of the building, which are below the undersurface of the lowest basement floor; (2) Those supports described in (1) above which are below the surface of the ground inside the foundation walls, if there is no basement; and (3) Underground flues, pipes, wiring and drains. d. We will pay no more than the actual cash value of the damage until actual repair or replacement is complete. Once actual repair or replacement is complete, we will settle the loss as noted in 2.a. and b. above. However, if the cost to repair or replace the damage is both: (1) Less than 5% of the amount of insurance in this policy on the building; and (2) Less than $2,500; we will settle the loss as noted in 2.a. and b. above whether or not actual repair or replacement is complete. e. You may disregard the replacement cost loss settlement provisions and make claim under this policy for loss to buildings on an actual cash value basis. You may then make claim for any additional liability according to the provisions of this Condition C. Loss Settlement, provided you notify us of your intent to do so within 180 days after the date of loss. SECTION I – CONDITIONS C. Loss Settlement With respect to a loss to buildings covered under Section I caused by a "Sinkhole loss", paragraph 2.d. of the Loss Settlement Condition is replaced by the following: d. We will pay for the loss as follows: (1) We will pay no more than the actual cash value of the damaged property, not including underpinning or grouting or any other repair technique performed below the existing foundation of the building, until you enter into a contract for the performance of building stabilization or foundation repairs. You must enter into a contract for the performance of building stabilization or foundation repairs within 90 days after we confirm coverage for the “sinkhole loss” and notify you of such confirmation. This time period is tolled if either party invokes the “neutral evaluation” process, and begins again 10 days after the conclusion of the “neutral evaluation” process. Once you enter into such contract, we will settle the loss as described in this Condition and pay the amount necessary to begin and perform such repairs as the work is performed and as expenses are incurred. The stabilization and all other repairs to the buildings covered under Section I must be completed within 12 months after entering into the contract for repairs unless: (a) There is mutual agreement between us and you; (b) The claim is involved with the “neutral evaluation” process; (c) The claim is in litigation; or (d) The claim is under mediation. However, if the cost to repair or replace the damage is both: (a) Less than 5% of the amount of insurance in this policy on the building; and (b) Less than $2,500; we will settle the loss as noted in this Condition whether or not you have entered into a contract to perform the building stabilization or foundation repairs. (2) If the repairs have begun and the professional engineer selected or approved by us determines that the recommended repairs cannot be completed within the policy limits, we must: (a) Complete the recommended repairs; or (b) Pay the policy limits without a reduction for the repair expenses incurred.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Bobby Smith (the "Insured") purchased an insurance policy ("Policy") from Slide Insurance Company ("Slide"), with effective coverage on the date of the loss, on or about August 30, 2023, and policy number SJ31046766 to insure his home located at 4884 SW Elim Church Rd. Lake City FL 32024 (the "Property"). On or about August 30, 2023, the aforementioned Property suffered severe damage as the result of Hurricane Idalia, which caused ensuing damages to the Property, including but not limited to the roof, exterior, as well as water damage on the ceiling, walls, hallway damage ceiling, flooring, kitchen ceiling and walls, laundry room walls & ceiling, damage in the loft as well. The Insured promptly reported his claim to Slide. Slide acknowledged receipt of the claim by generating claim number SL23205103. Slide sent a vendor to place a tarp on the roof, as the Hurricane created a opening in the roof allowing water and the elements to enter the property. Slide’s vendor failed to adequately tarp the roof which resulted in additional unnecessary damage to the property. Slide sent a field adjuster to inspect and he generated an estimate. Slide made a low-ball coverage decision that broadly ignored the damage sustained to the Property valuing the damage at $3,102.29, after withholding the deductible and deprecation. It was clear that Slide was trying to reduce their contractual obligation by undervaluing the damage to the insureds’ Property from the start, despite the fact that the Insureds actively provided all proof of claim needed to have their claim evaluated fairly. The Insureds sought out a contractor, Fred Perry’s Quality Construction (“Fred Perry”), to assist them with evaluating their damages. Fred Perry estimated the damage in the amount of $241,225.98. Fred Perry placed a proper tarp on the steep roof and immediately sent their estimate to Slide. Upon receipt of the Insured’s Notice of Intent to Litigate, Slide requested mediation which resulted in an impasse. The Insured was forced to retain legal counsel and initiated his lawsuit against Slide in January 2024. Then, in February 2024, after the suit was filed, Slide issued a second payment to the Insured for $45,417.77, nearly fifteen times the amount of its original payment. This second payment was still deficient, as it did not consider the full extent of damages to the property, nor did it include any amounts for the attorney’s fees and costs that the insured was entitled to. Slide’s dramatically insufficient coverage decision has resulted in further damages to the Insureds by preventing them from returning their Property to its pre-loss condition, rather than participating in the settlement process in good faith. 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, exterior and interior of the property that will require repairs, Slide continues to refuse to provide additional money in order to begin these repairs. Slide has the resources to repair this home, based in part off of the premiums that the Insured has been paying, but instead forced the Insured 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, Slide 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, Slide has continued its pre-suit failures to act in good faith into litigation by delaying the prompt resolution of the claim. Slide 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, Slide has acted with only its own profit and shareholders in mind. As a direct consequence of Slide’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 Insured’s Property more than a year ago and are continuing to sustain considerable hardship. Upon information and belief, Slide, as part of its general business practice, initially low-balls its policyholders. Slide does this in a calculated and systematic scheme that begins with manipulating the software system used in estimating its property damage claims. It appears that Slide issues its adjusters estimating software which contains construction pricing below the fair market value. It also appears that Slide trains its claim adjusters to overlook and/or turn a blind eye to a number of routine costs that Slide knows most policyholders generally would not know to request but are actually covered under the insured’s policy. Moreover, as part of this scheme, after making one initial low-ball payment – Slide stalls and intentionally delays the claim, changing adjusters, all under the false pretense that it’s “investigating” the claim. Slide 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 insureds. Slide has also violated Florida Statute § 624.155(1)(b)(3) by failing to promptly settle this obviously 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, it is a disgrace that the Insureds have been treated in this manner by their insurance company after sustaining an obviously covered loss, submitting to every demand of Slide, and making a good faith effort to resolve in an attempt to amicably come to a fair resolution. Slide 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. Slide was informed multiple times of the discrepancies and inconsistencies of the low-ball payment issued to the Insureds. While Slide 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, Slide accepted that information and has used it to play the delay game with the Insureds, knowing all too well the additional damage and hardship that was being placed on the Insureds by its actions. Slide 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. Slide and their representatives are willfully blind and grossly underqualified to handle a loss such as the one sustained by the Insureds. In addition, after being placed on notice as to the blatant underpayment of the Insureds’ claim, Slide has yet to rectify their actions and do right by the Insureds by paying the money they are contractually owed. Slide violated § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) by failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon the communications with respect to the claim. There still has yet to be significant action taken by Slide to this date, despite Slide being presented with the flawed rationale behind their underpayment of the Insureds’ claim. Slide violated § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g) by failing to promptly notify the Insureds of any additional information necessary for processing the claim. The Insureds have more than complied with each and every request and there has still been no action by Slide. In the event Slide 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 Slide 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 insureds throughout the insurance claim process. Several duties and responsibilities to the Insureds 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 Slide 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 Slide by the public. To date, Slide has failed to adequately compensate the Insureds for the damage that occurred on August 30, 2023. As a direct result of Slide’s delay, the Insureds were 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 Slide knowingly and intentionally are delaying the claims process in order to further disadvantage the Insureds. The financial detriment caused to the Insureds and their family is a direct result of Slide’s reckless delay of the claim process. The Insureds are dutiful customers who made it a priority to pay their insurance premiums to ensure that in such an event as this devastating incident, their home would be covered. The Insureds timely filed their claim and fulfilled all of their post-loss obligations. All requested information and documentation has been turned over to Slide and their representatives promptly by the Insureds. However, Slide failed at every step of the process to adequately establish or identify the basis of its gross mismanagement of the claim, failed to inform the Insureds how they may remedy any deficiencies in their claim, and failed to provide them with qualified representatives to ensure the claim was initially adjusted, evaluated, and estimated properly. To deny the Insureds the benefit of their bargain after they satisfied all of their obligations is morally and ethically reprehensible, and reeks of Unfair Trade Practice. Upon information and belief, the aforementioned actions complained of, among others, were made by Slide so often as to constitute a general business practice, evidencing a motive to enhance Slide’s profits, and designed to cause a detrimental effect to its policy holders. Slide was aware that the Insureds’ damages were covered and took advantage of its Insureds in an attempt to force them into an irreparably disadvantaged position, which they hope will force the Insureds to settle for less coverage than they are contractually entitled to under the policy. This notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, should Slide 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, Slide must: (1) Immediately tender all insurance proceeds due and owing to the Insureds that are fairly owed to the Insureds under the insurance policy that would reasonably place the Insureds back to a pre-loss condition; (2) Agree to reimburse the Insureds’ reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for having to become involved to resolve the claim; (3) Agree to reimburse the Insureds for interest on the amount of benefits that was found to be due and owing to the Insureds, relating back to the date of loss. The Insured hereby request that Slide now make a reasonable counter-offer before the expiration of the cure period.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
ccabrera@slideinsurance.com 01-24-2025 Via E-mail & Posting on DFS Website Patricia Fernandez Esq. Weisser Elazar & Kantor, PLLC 800 E Broward Blvd., Ste. 510 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 PF@weklaw.com RE: Complainant: Bobby Smith Insured: Bobby Smith Claim No: SL23205103 Policy No: SJ31046766 Date of loss: 8/29/2023 CRN Filing No.: 794571 Dear Ms. Fernandez: Please allow this correspondence to serve as Slide Insurance Company’s (“Slide”)’s response to the Civil Remedy Notice (“CRN”) that was filed on behalf of Bobby Smith (“Insured”). Herein, we include a brief factual history of the underlying claim and actions by Slide which reveals it has acted properly in responding to the underlying claim and in compliance with its contractual and legal obligations. Slide denies each and every allegation brought forth in the CRN and denies any wrongdoing in the handling of the underlying claim. Additionally, Slide denies violating any Florida Statute or Administrative Code as set forth more specifically herein. Slide also denies violating any provisions or duties set forth in the applicable policy of insurance. Slide further states that the facts and circumstances that are set forth in the CRN, while incomplete and misleading, do not give rise to any violation of any statute or policy provision referenced in the Notice. Furthermore, Slide challenges the validity of the CRN for not identifying the specific policy language they claim Slide failed to follow. See, e.g., Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So.3d 875, 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (holding a civil remedy notice was legally insufficient by failing to state with specificity the policy language and statutory provisions at issue); Demase v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company, 351 So.3d 136, 138-39 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022) (holding that the trial court properly determined that a civil remedy notice that failed to state with specificity the relevant policy language was legally insufficient). Finally, the CRN is improper as the Insured failed to establish that Slide breached the policy of insurance, as required by Fla. Stat. §624.1551. CLAIM FACTS The underlying claim was reported on September 4, 2023, as a claim relating to a wind loss with a date of loss of August 29, 2023. Slide sent Independent Adjuster Rickey Brewer to inspect the insured property. Additionally, Slide sent Lynn Edwards, G.C., with Edwards Claim Consultants, a licensed general contractor, to reinspect the insured property. Nonetheless, based on Slide’s investigation and evaluation of the claim, Slide issued its determination letter and payment(s) totaling approximately $48,520.06 Thus, Slide maintains that it has acted in accordance with the terms of the subject insurance policy, and the law, and has acted in good faith towards the Insured. Slide denies that it violated any statutes or committed the acts asserted in the CRN. Slide neither waives nor is estopped from asserting any and all rights that it may have in law or under the terms of the policy. Slide expressly reserves all such rights without exception or limitation. REASONS FOR THE NOTICE The CRN alleges four (4) reasons for the filing of the Notice. However, no specific facts or circumstances are provided to support these allegations. Notwithstanding, Slide denies each and every allegation of violation individually as follows: Claim Delay: Slide denies any delay in the claims handling process of the underlying loss as is evident from the facts outlined above. Slide promptly acknowledged the claim and timely initiated its investigation of the loss including inspections of the subject property. Slide acted in accordance with its duties and obligations pursuant to the policy of insurance and responded appropriately to information and documentation that was provided. Thus, Slide asserts that this allegation is without basis and therefore denied. Claim Denial: This allegation is without basis and therefore denied. Slide acted in accordance with its duties and obligations pursuant to the policy of insurance as well as Florida law. Accordingly, Slide’s actions are adequately supported by law and fact. Thus, this allegation is without basis and therefore denied. Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer: Slide denies that it extended any unsatisfactory settlement offers to the Insured. Slide promptly investigated the loss and issued payments based on the investigation and evaluation of the claim. Slide asserts that it has acted in good faith towards its Insured at all times. Thus, this allegation is without basis and therefore denied. Unfair Trade Practice: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is wholly denied. The Insured has submitted no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. The handling and administration of this claim occurred with the expediency and timeliness allowed by the statutory requirements imposed upon Slide. At no time did Slide, its agents, or its employees delay the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. The facts show that Slide acted promptly with respect to the investigation of the underlying claim and made communications as necessary to adjust the claim in a prompt and appropriate matter. Information necessary and relevant to the proceeding of the claim, were communicated to the Insured or his representatives in an appropriate manner. Thus, this allegation is without basis and therefore denied. ALLEGED STATUTORY VIOLATIONS The CRN alleges multiple statutory violations. However, no specific facts or circumstances are provided to support these allegations. Notwithstanding, Slide denies each and every allegation of statutory violation individually as follows: 624.155(1)(b)(1): Denied. The underlying claim was investigated and adjusted in as thorough and expedient a manner as possible. Accordingly, Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Moreover, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 624.155(1)(b)(3): Denied. Slide has not failed to promptly settle the underlying claim. The underlying claim was investigated and adjusted in as thorough and expedient a manner as possible.?Following the investigation and evaluation of the underlying claim, payment(s) were tendered. Accordingly, Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it.? Moreover, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 626.9541(1)(i)(2): Denied. Slide has not made any material misrepresentations to the Insured or any other person having an interest in the proceeds payable under the subject policy for insurance. The underlying claim has been investigated and adjusted in as thorough and expedient a manner as possible. Slide routinely communicated relevant information to the Insured and/or their representatives. Thus, any such allegation is without merit and unsupported by the facts of the underlying claim. Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Finally, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b): Denied.? This allegation is without basis.? Slide has been forthcoming and truthful regarding the pertinent claim facts and/or insurance policy provisions relating to the reported loss. Slide’s correspondences and communications to the Insured and/or their representatives proves this fact.? Accordingly, Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it.? Finally, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c): Denied. This allegation is without basis. Slide has consistently acted promptly upon all communications with respect to this claim as previously outlined. Slide has adjusted the underlying loss in as thorough and expedient a manner as possible. Moreover, Slide routinely communicated with the Insured and/or their representatives regarding the underlying claim. Thus, Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Any assertions to the contrary are unsupported by the facts. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g): Denied.? This allegation is without basis.? Slide promptly notified the Insured and/or their representatives regarding the pertinent claim facts and information needed relating to the claim. Slide’s communications prove this fact.? Accordingly, Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it.? Finally, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE INSURANCE POLICY The CRN fails to allege specific violations of the insurance policy and provides no specific facts or circumstances of wrongdoing. The boilerplate CRN merely sets forth blanket policy provisions without specific allegations of wrongdoing, without further information. As such, the CRN is defective, as it failed to specifically identify the policy language that is the subject of the alleged violation, and further failed to include sufficient facts to put Slide on notice of the alleged violations. Notwithstanding, Slide denies any and all allegations of policy violations. All actions by Slide were done in compliance with the applicable Policy. As indicated above, Slide thoroughly investigated the reported loss including inspections of the insured property and issuing payments accordingly. Thus, it is clear that Slide has acted in compliance with the Policy. Slide asserts that it has at all times complied with the terms of the Policy and has complied with all applicable provisions of the Policy and Florida Statutes in the handling of this matter. Statements as to curing the defects outlined in the Notice The CRN asserts that Slide must tender all insurance benefits due and owing, agree to attorneys fees and costs, and interest9S). Slide asserts all benefits due and owing underthe Policy have been tendered. All actions by Slide were done in compliance with the applicable Policy. Nonethless, the method for curing violations alleged in a Civil Remedy Notice is not determined by the Insured. Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co., 753 So. 2d So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). Accordingly, Florida Statutes Section 624.155 does not impose on an insurer the obligation to pay whatever the Insured’ demands. Section 624.155(2)(d) would have no effect or purpose under such an interpretation. Thus, Slide reasserts that it has acted in good faith towards its Insured at all times. Slide references to all the facts herein, which unequivocally demonstrate Slide’s expedient and timely administration of the Insured’s claim. Slide further asserts its full and strict compliance with the Policy and reiterates that it has acted properly in responding to the underlying claim in compliance with its contractual and legal obligations. Slide denies any wrongdoing in the handling of the underlying claim. Additionally, Slide denies violating any Florida Statute, Administrative Code, or code of ethics. Conclusion In conclusion, the documented facts of this claim establish that Slide acted diligently in its claims response and adequately performed its obligations under the policy of insurance and Florida law. Thus, the facts contradict all allegations that Slide has in any manner acted improperly or contrary to its contractual obligations to the Insured in this claim. Herein, Slide has attempted to fully and adequately respond to the allegations the Insureds allege in the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation filed with the Department. Should there be any questions or further inquiry with respect to this matter, please contact the undersigned at ccabrera@slideinsurance.com. Sincerely, /s/ Chelsea Cabrera Chelsea Cabrera, Esq. Staff Counsel for Slide
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