Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     795601
Filing Accepted:  12/5/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
CENTI   First Name   MATTHEW
Street Address * 3404 W EL PRADO BLVD
City, State Zip * TAMPA, FL 33629
Email Address * WITHHELD
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   CENTI   First Name   MATTHEW
Policy # * FPH5558501-01 Claim #* FPI250421
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* WALLACE First Name * BLAKE Initial M
Street Address* 8635 W. HILLSBOROUGH AVENUE, SUITE 401
City, State Zip* TAMPA , FLORIDA 33615
Email Address * BLAKE@KLINGLAW.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   FLORIDA PENINSULA INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10132
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* SELBY HATCHER, DAVID WILLIAMS, AND ERICA PILGROM
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Claim Delay
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)(b) Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information.
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)(j) Altering or amending an insurance adjuster’s report without: (I) Providing a detailed explanation as to why any change that has the effect of reducing the estimate of the loss was made; and (II) Including on the report or as an addendum to the report a detailed list of all changes made to the report and the identity of the person who ordered each change; or (III) Retaining all versions of the report, and including within each such version, for each change made within such version of the report, the identity of each person who made or ordered such change;
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

THE INSUREDS DO NOT HAVE A FULL CERTIFIED COPY OF THE POLICY. HOWEVER, THE PERTINENT POLICY PROVISIONS ARE THE LOSS PAYMENT AND LOSS SETTLEMENT PROVISIONS AS WELL AS THE PROVISIONS DESCRIBING OVERAGES AT ISSUE. A. Loss By Windstorm During A Hurricane With respect to Paragraphs C. and D., coverage for loss caused by the peril of windstorm during a hurricane which occurs anywhere in the state of Florida, includes loss to: 1. The inside of a building; or 2. The property contained in a building caused by: a. Rain; b. Snow; c. Sleet; d. Hail; e. Sand; or f. Dust; If the direct force of the windstorm damages the building, causing an opening in a roof or wall and the rain, snow, sleet, hail, sand or dust enters through this opening. B. Hurricane Described A. A hurricane means a storm system that has been declared to be a hurricane by the National Hurricane Center of the National Weather Service. B. A hurricane occurrence: a. Begins at the time a hurricane warning is issued for any part of Florida by the National Hurricane Center of the National Weather Service; and b. Ends 72 hours following the termination of the last hurricane warning issued for any part of Florida by the National Hurricane Center of the National Weather Service. C. Calendar Year Hurricane Deductible Described A hurricane deductible issued by us or another insurer in our insurer group or under a policy assumed from Citizens Property Insurance Corporation under a Takeout Agreement: 1. Can be exhausted only once during each calendar year; and 2. Applies to loss to Covered Property caused by one or more hurricanes during each calendar year. The dollar amount of the calendar year hurricane deductible is shown on your Declarations. A minimum deductible of $500 applies. D. Application of Calendar Year Hurricane Deductible 1. In the event of the first windstorm loss caused by a single hurricane occurrence during a calendar year, we will pay only that part of the total of all loss payable under COVERAGES that exceeds the calendar year hurricane deductible stated in your Declarations.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

December 5, 2024 Sent Via Email FLORIDA PENINSULA INSURANCE COMPANY csclaims@floridapeninsula.com RE: Insured : MATTHEW CENTI (hereinafter, “Insured”) Policy # : FPH5558501-01 Claim # : FPI250421 Property Address : 3404 W El Prado Blvd, Tampa, FL 33629 Persons most knowledgeable of facts giving rise to the Violations: Selby Hatcher, David Williams, and Erica Pilgrom Dear FLORIDA PENINSULA INSURANCE COMPANY: Please find enclosed the civil remedy notice filed for the above referenced claim. This notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by Florida Statute §624.155 As discussed in greater detail in the notice, the carrier has not attempted in good faith to settle the claimant’s claim when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its claimant and with due regard for its interests. The carrier has done everything possible to delay the claim and refuses to provide any sort of status of the claim. Furthermore, the carrier is required to properly investigate and adjust claims and cannot place that burden upon the insured. This was made clear by the appellate court and the Florida Supreme Court in Allstate Indemnity Co. v. Ruiz, 899 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 2005) (“The Legislature has clearly chosen to impose on the insurance companies a duty to use good faith and fair dealing in processing and litigating the claims of their insured…”). The carrier was put on notice of the insured’s Hurricane Milton claim on October 19, 2024. Since the commencement of the claim the carrier has failed to timely communicate with the insured. It is obvious that the carrier is not attempting to pay for the clearly covered damages owed under the policy. The carrier assigned David Williams, who is not an engineer, to inspect the loss. On November 21, 2024, the carrier made the unilateral determinations that A) the damages to the property, including the interior would be excluded under the policy and therefore be denied and that B) the damages that were covered failed to exceed the deductible on the policy and that the insured would be entitled to $0 after the application of the deductible. It was clear that the damages exceeded the deductible. Moreover, in reaching those conclusions, Florida Peninsula failed to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. There was no explanation whatsoever as to how Florida Peninsula determined which items of damage were caused by covered or excluded perils. Furthermore, the carrier’s failure to assign a qualified and experienced engineer further violates F.S. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a). Moreover, as the carrier denied coverage without conducting a reasonable investigation based upon available information, the carrier violated F.S. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d). Additionally, the carrier failed to describe how it arrived at the amount it withheld for depreciation. The policy does not explain how depreciation or actual cash value is calculated, and the carrier did not explain the facts or applicable law in relation to the payment made. This is a violation of F.S. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f). Florida Statute 627.70131(3)(e) requires the carrier to provide an estimate within 7 days after the estimate is generated by the insurer’s adjuster. However, it is clear that Florida Peninsula altered the original estimate and failed to provide the unaltered copy. The insurer must send the policyholder a copy of any detailed estimate of the amount of the loss within 7 days after the estimate is generated by an insurer’s adjuster. The carrier also violated F.S. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(j) by failing to provide a detailed explanation of as why the changes had the effect of reducing the estimate of the loss made and by failing to include on the report or as an addendum to the report a detailed list of all changes made to the report. The insured has been compelled to obtain an independently adjusted estimate totaling in the amount of $237,227.74 that would be needed to repair the property back to its pre-loss condition. The insured has complied with all the carrier’s requests to date. The carrier has still refused to pay the fully covered amount owed under the policy, instead electing to stand by its unilaterally determined deficient valuation of the loss while denying the rest of the loss. It is clear that the carrier is not treating the claimant with good faith claims conduct; failing to pay a claim clearly owed; not adjusting the claim and evaluating the loss properly, promptly and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to the claimant; failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims and placing the company’s interests before the claimant’s interests; not training, supervising or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made; refusing to pay the full amount owed to the insured despite the fact that the damages are covered under the policy; looking for ways to delay full recovery or any recovery to the insured; and refusing to provide coverage for the claimant’s loss in a timely manner. The Carrier’s actions are in violation of Florida Statutes §§ 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), 627.4137(1), and Fla. Stat. §627.70131. The actions taken by Florida Peninsula in the handling/adjustment of the insured’s claim were willful, wanton, malicious, and in reckless disregard for the rights of any insureds and occur with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice, and further are in violation of Florida Statutes §624.155 and F.S. §626.954. Indeed, when performing a search on the Florida Department of Financial Services website’s Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation page the results of searches of violations of the statutes referenced herein by the carrier returned the following results thereby indicating that the number of times they occur rise to the level of a general business practice, and warrant punitive damages: §624.155(1)(b)(1) = 3,767 §624.155(1)(b)(3) = 2,750 §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) = 3,609 §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) = 2,952 §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) = 2,296 §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f) = 2,290 §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(j) = 17 Based upon the above-referenced acts and omissions, the carrier has breached the insurance contract by failing to pay the amount due to the insured, by denying coverage which existed under the insurance contract with the insured in the instant dispute, by failing to adjust the loss with the insureds, and by failing to perform and adequate investigation. These are violations and breaches of the policy language cited above. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, the carrier must: 1) Pay the complete covered loss in the amount of $237,227.74 less any applicable policy deductible; and 2) Pay the statutory interest on the amount of unpaid damages from the date of loss to the date payment is finally made. A copy of this letter and filed form submitted to the FDFS has been emailed to the carrier. The specific policy provisions the carrier violated are the loss payment provision, the loss settlement provision, and the coverage provisions. Specifically, the loss payment provision states “we will adjust all losses with you.” Yet, the carrier did not consult the homeowner in deciding who would investigate the cause or amount of damages, and what the ultimate payment should be. The other provisions are pasted on the pages following the signature block. If you have any questions or concerns, please send all correspondence via email to Blake@klinglaw.com and Jorlyn@KlingLaw.com to ensure a prompt response. We ask that all correspondence be done via email rather than regular mail. Should you need to send something regular mail, please advise us prior to sending same via the emails above. Sincerely, Kling Law, P.A. Blake M Wallace, Esq. Blake M. Wallace, Esquire
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
jbosch@qpwblaw.com 02-01-2025 VIA DFS WEBSITE Florida Department of Insurance Civil Remedy Section 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Complainant: Matthew Centi Claim No: FPI250421 (“subject claim”) Policy No: FPH5558501-01 (“policy”) Loss Location: 3404 W EL PRADO BLVD, TAMPA, FL 33629 (“property”) CRN Filing No: 795601 CRN Acceptance Date: 12/05/2024 RE: CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE - DFS FILING NUMBER 795601 Dear Sir or Madam: The undersigned counsel represents Florida Peninsula Insurance Company (“Florida Peninsula”) in regard to the alleged dispute as to the subject claim number listed above involving an alleged windstorm with a date of loss of on or about October 10, 2024, made under the Policy of insurance Florida Peninsula issued to the Insured, Matthew Centi. This correspondence constitutes Florida Peninsula Insurance Company’s response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (“Notice” or “CRN”) filed on behalf of Matthew Centi (referenced herein as “Insured” or “Complainant”) regarding the claim listed above. Based on the below response, the Civil Remedy Notice should be rejected and returned by the Department of Financial Services as it is substantively defective and objectionable for the reasons stated herein, and, without waiving objections, as it completely misstates the facts surrounding this claim. ALLEGED 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. Florida Peninsula specifically denies the allegation that it has violated the above referenced statute. Florida Peninsula did not violate these provisions. The CRN does not include any facts to support this allegation. Florida Peninsula conducted thorough investigations in good faith. 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. Florida Peninsula specifically denies the allegation that it has violated the above referenced statute. Florida Peninsula did not violate these provisions. The CRN does not include any facts to support this allegation. Florida Peninsula conducted thorough investigations in good faith. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. Florida Peninsula specifically denies the Complainant’s allegation that it has violated the above referenced statute. The CRN does not include any facts to support this allegation. Florida Peninsula did not fail to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of the claim. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b): Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. Florida Peninsula specifically denies the Complainant’s allegation that it has violated the above referenced statute. The CRN does not include any facts to support this allegation. Florida Peninsula conducted thorough investigations in good faith and issued its coverage determination based on the Policy’s provisions, conditions, exclusions and endorsements, and did not misrepresent any pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. This allegation is without merit. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d): Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information. Florida Peninsula specifically denies the Complainant’s allegation that it has violated the above referenced statute. The CRN does not include any facts to support this allegation. Florida Peninsula conducted thorough investigations in good faith and issued its coverage determination based on the Policy’s provisions, conditions, exclusions and endorsements. This allegation is without merit. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f): Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of the basis of the insurance policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement. Florida Peninsula specifically denies the Complainant’s allegation that it has violated the above referenced statute. The CRN does not include any facts to support this allegation. Florida Peninsula conducted thorough investigations in good faith and issued its coverage determination based on the Policy’s provisions, conditions, exclusions and endorsements. This allegation is without merit. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(j): Altering or amending an insurance adjuster’s report without: (I) Providing a detailed explanation as to why any change that has the effect of reducing the estimate of the loss was made; and (II) Including on the report or as an addendum to the report a detailed list of all changes made to the report and the identity of the person who ordered each change; or (III) Retaining all versions of the report, and including within each such version, for each change made within such version of the report, the identity of each person who made or ordered such change; Florida Peninsula specifically denies the Complainant’s allegation that it has violated the above referenced statute. The CRN does not include any facts to support this allegation. Florida Peninsula acted in accordance with the Florida Statutes during its investigation and adjustment of the subject claim. This allegation is without merit. In addition to the allegations specifically denied above, Florida Peninsula generally denies all allegations presented in this CRN, as Florida Peninsula has not violated any statute, Code or Rule. SPECIFICITY REQUIREMENTS Florida Statute requires that a CRN state the facts and circumstances giving rise to the alleged violations with specificity sufficient to allow an insurer to “cure” the alleged violations within the sixty-day statutory period. See Fla. Stat. § 624. 155(3)(b)(2). See also Lane v. Westfield Ins. Co., 862 So. 2d 774, 777 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1283 (Fla. 2000). However, here, the CRN is deficient and defective in that it fails to state with sufficient specificity the necessary facts in support of the Insureds’ contentions, including but not limited to, those that would be necessary for Florida Peninsula to “cure” the alleged violations. Further, the subject CRN provides what appears to be several boilerplate and conclusory statements, which fail to describe any accurate facts constituting violations of the statutes cited therein. Thus, because the allegations in the CRN are incomplete and incorrect, they fail to provide actual notice of the specific allegations and the actions that Florida Peninsula could undertake to cure any alleged violations. 316, Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 625 F. Supp. 2d 1187, 1193 (N. D. Fla. 2008). Blanket references to policy provisions and statutes without specification deems the Civil Remedy Notice deficient. Julien v. United Property and Casualty Insurance Co., 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). For the reasons set forth herein, Florida Peninsula hereby objects to the subject CRN and states it does not intend to waive, ratify or otherwise accept the deficiencies in the CRN, and reserves the right to contest the legal adequacy of the CRN hereinafter as appropriate. As to the content of the CRN here, it is important to note that said CRN is a nullity and should be rejected because the CRN fails to comply with the specific requirements mandated by Florida Statutes §624.155. Specifically, Fla. Stat. § 624.155(3)(b)(2) requires the Complainant to set forth with specificity, sufficient factual allegations to state a prima facie case of an insurer violation, so as to put the insurer on notice and be afforded the opportunity to cure the deficiency. However, the Insureds failed to do so in the subject CRN and instead only included conclusory statements, which lack even minimal specificity and/or lack the underlying factual basis to support them. The Insured’s failure to describe any actual facts or circumstances to support the alleged statutory violations in the CRN precludes Florida Peninsula from evaluating what error, if any, allegedly occurred during the claim process. Furthermore, contrary to the requirement to “describe the facts and circumstances giving rise to the insurer’s violation as you understand them at this time,” the purpose of which is “to enable the insurer to investigate and resolve [the] claim,” the CRN itself only provides unsupported and incorrect allegations with no basis in fact or circumstances. Consequently, the CRN lacks the requisite minimal specificity and Florida Peninsula is unable to determine what specifically the Complainant is claiming was done by or on behalf of Florida Peninsula that constitutes the bad faith alleged. Due to the absence of specific and accurate information regarding the alleged acts or omissions by Florida Peninsula which allegedly give rise to any violation of the Civil Remedy Statute, Florida Peninsula is limited in its ability to set forth specific facts to address and/or refute these unsubstantiated assertions. Notwithstanding, Florida Peninsula explicitly denies violations of any applicable Florida Statute in the adjustment of the subject claim and realleges and re-asserts its specific denials to the alleged violations in the subject CRN as set forth above. Florida Peninsula maintains that it has acted and continues at all times to act in good faith during the investigation and adjustment of the Insured’s claim. Further, Florida Peninsula wishes to dispel even the inference of any statutory violation and reiterates below the various reasons which clearly show the proper handling of the subject claim by Florida Peninsula. Additionally, the CRN fails to state with specificity the facts relevant to any alleged policy violation. Julien v. United Property and Casualty Insurance Co., 311 So.3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). The CRN merely refers to general language without any details as to how any provisions were actually violated. Thus, the CRN does not satisfy the requirements. BACKGROUND FACTS Aside from the fact that the allegations contained in the subject CRN lack specific facts, the tenor and inferences of statutory violations are wholly without merit, and Florida Peninsula denies each and every one. Below are some of the relevant facts regarding the subject claim that the Insured failed to include in the CRN. On October 19, 2024, the Insured’s Public Adjuster contacted Florida Peninsula to report a claim for damages as a result of Hurricane Milton. It was also reported that there was damage to the roof as well as water leaks. Immediately, on the same day, Florida Peninsula sent correspondence to the Insured acknowledging receipt of the claim and advising the Insured of his duties after loss. The next day, Florida Peninsula sent email correspondence to the Insured acknowledging receipt of the claim, and providing information to the Insured regarding the adjuster. Upon receiving notice of Insured’s claim, Florida Peninsula retained Eberl Claim Service to inspect and evaluate the Insured’s property and reported damages. Florida Peninsula made its initial contact with the Insured on October 21, 2024 to coordinate the inspection of the property, which was conducted on October 29, 2024. On November 21, 2024, Florida Peninsula issued its coverage determination letter informing the Insured that the estimate of damages was under the Policy’s deductible, and that there was no coverage for part of the claim related to flood damages that are not covered by the terms of the subject Policy. Florida Peninsula also included with its Coverage Determination Letter, an Estimate, Statement of Loss, relevant Policy language, and Mediation Statement. Neither the Insured nor the Public Adjuster provided any additional documentation to Florida Peninsula in connection with the subject claim, and proceeded with filing the instant CRN. During Florida Peninsula’s handling of this claim, Florida Peninsula communicated promptly with the Insured and their Public Adjuster, both via email and telephonically, regarding the status of the claim as well as the coverage determination, and provided draft copies of the Field Adjuster’s estimates as required by the Florida Statutes. As you can see, Florida Peninsula conducted a good faith comprehensive and prompt investigation of this claim. Florida Peninsula consistently and promptly communicated with the Insureds and their representatives and conducted an inspection of the property. Florida Peninsula afforded coverage based on an inspection and thorough investigation of the claim. Florida Peninsula respectfully denies any wrongdoing in the adjustment and handling of the Subject Claim, and further denies any and all allegations that it violated any statutes. Instead, Florida Peninsula acted quickly and responsibly and in accordance with the terms and provisions of the applicable Policy of insurance as well as with F.S. §624.155 and §626.9541 and its sub-parts. INACCURACY OF ALLEGATIONS IN THE SUBJECT CRN The case specific facts related to Florida Peninsula’s handling of the subject claim provided above implicitly address many of the vague allegations contained within the Insured’s CRN and further establish that Florida Peninsula undertook a thorough investigation in accordance with applicable statutory requirements and professional standards of care. It is important to note that the Insured has not provided any factual support for any of the above allegations. Instead, the facts support that Florida Peninsula promptly contacted the Insured, inspected the claim shortly after it was reported, and issued a coverage determination based on a thorough investigation. When additional information was provided, Florida Peninsula conducted additional investigations. The circumstances support that Florida Peninsula conducted a good faith, thorough, prompt investigation with the information provided. The Insured is alleging bad faith in a scenario where Florida Peninsula conducted a comprehensive, prompt investigation in good faith. Furthermore, contrary to the requirement to “describe the facts and circumstances giving rise to the insurer’s violation as you understand them at this time”, the purpose of which is “to enable the insurer to investigate and resolve [the] claim”, the Civil Remedy Notice itself only provides completely false allegations with no basis in fact or circumstances. This CRN is simply based on a matter where the Insured disagrees with the amount of damage determined by Florida Peninsula. As clearly set forth above and contrary to the allegations set forth in the Notice, Florida Peninsula’s investigations and adjusting of its Insured’s claim were prompt, thorough, and complete. When additional information was provided, the claim was reopened. Furthermore, the Insured has included absolutely no facts or evidence to support any claims in the Notice. All of these baseless claims support Florida Peninsula’s position that the claim was properly adjusted, and the Insureds do not actually have any concrete facts to support a bad faith allegation. As mentioned, mere disagreement as to the amount of coverage or the coverage determination does not equate to bad faith. The Civil Remedy Notice does not show how Florida Peninsula has failed to comply with the statutory provisions alleged to have been violated. Evidently, this Civil Remedy Notice was filed in bad faith, as it is being used as an improper mechanism designed solely for the purpose of intimidating Florida Peninsula into potentially overpaying the Insured. For the aforementioned reasons, Florida Peninsula categorically denies that it has acted with bad faith in connection with this claim. CONCLUSION The purpose of a CRN is to provide the insurer an opportunity to “cure” the alleged wrongdoing. Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. , 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). However, the CRN here does not serve this purpose because it does not provide any means as to how FPIC can “cure” the alleged defects. This failure to provide a proper opportunity to cure renders the CRN improper. Longpoint Condominium Associations v. Allstate Insurance Co. , 2005 WL 131580 (N. D. Fla. June 2, 2005). Moreover, the method for curing the violations alleged in a civil remedy notice are not determined by the insured. In Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. , 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000), the Florida Supreme Court accepted and quoted the reasoning of the court below in its opinion which stated in relevant part, as follows: 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. The law does not support such an expansive and illogical reading of Fla. Stat. Ann. §624. 155(2)(d). . . . To cure an alleged violation and to avoid a civil action, an insurer must pay the claim . . . before the sixty days expire. Talat, 753 So2d at 1282 citing Talat Enterprises Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 952 F. Supp. 773, 777-778 (M. D. Fla. 1996). Here, Florida Peninsula properly afforded coverage for the subject claim as it investigated the loss within the statutory time frame. Florida Peninsula denies all of the allegations contained in the subject CRN, which is defective and improper, as Florida Peninsula has not violated any of the subject statutes. Florida Peninsula further states that the accusations made against it in the subject CRN are patently false. In closing, Florida Peninsula first believes that the Civil Remedy Notice should be rejected and returned by the Department of Financial Services due to its failure to comply with Florida Statute §624.155 and Florida Case law. Due to the lack of any factual and circumstantial basis to support the allegations therein, Florida Peninsula respectfully requests, through this response, that the DFS return and reject the CRN for lack of specificity pursuant to Florida Statutes. Regardless of the rejection, Florida Peninsula denies all allegations contained in the Civil Remedy Notice and submits there are no violations. While Florida Peninsula’s response herein is meant to address the allegations in the Insureds’ Notice, it is based upon the limited information provided in the Civil Remedy Notice and the information presented to date. If the Insured feels that Florida Peninsula is not in possession of all the facts, please inform the undersigned immediately. Please note that Florida Peninsula’s response is not necessarily exhaustive and does not preclude Florida Peninsula or anyone on Florida Peninsula’s behalf from asserting any other valid reason for seeking rejection and return of the Civil Remedy Notice. Also, this letter or any act or failure to act on the part of Florida Peninsula or any agent or representative of Florida Peninsula should not be construed as a waiver of any rights or defenses available to it by contract or at law, as all such rights and defenses are hereby specifically reserved. On behalf of Florida Peninsula, we trust that this response addresses the allegations in the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation. Should you have any questions regarding this matter or need anything further, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Very Truly Yours, QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, WOOD & BOYER, P.A.
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