Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     795737
Filing Accepted:  12/6/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
BAHRAM AMIRI   First Name  
Street Address * 18 RYLAND DR.
City, State Zip * PALM COAST, FL 32164
Email Address * BAMIRI41@GMAIL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   BAHRAM AMIRI   First Name  
Policy # * SIC3076286 Claim #* 202409004598
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* MASCI, ESQ. First Name * MICHAEL T. Initial
Street Address* 925 S. FEDERAL HWY
City, State Zip* BOCA RATON , FL 33432
Email Address * MMASCI@KPATTORNEY.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):* ALISHA MIZE
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
Unfair Trade Practice
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
* Statutory provision(s) which the insurer allegedly violated.
 
624.155(1)(b)(1) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests.
624.155(1)(b)(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)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
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.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Loss settlement provision
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

The carrier was put on notice of the insured’s property damage claim. The carrier initially attempted to low-ball the claim. Subsequently, the insured prepared a loss package in the amount of $43,625.57 needed to restore the property back to its pre-loss condition. Whereas, the carrier wrongfully represented the damages to the insured’s property to be below the policy deductible. The insured has complied with all of the carrier’s requests to date and the carrier has still failed to treat this claim with good faith. This intentional delay with the claim has led to direct prejudice of the insured. About two hundred days have passed since the original date of loss. The carrier has still refused to pay the fully covered amount owed under the policy. The carrier is aware of damage sustained by the insured’s property and has not taken any meaningful ensuing action. It is clear that the carrier is not treating the insured 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 insured; failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims by its adjusters and placing the company’s interests before the insured’s interests; refusing to pay the full amount owed to the insured despite the fact that the carrier has been on notice of the damages and looking for ways to delay full recovery or any recovery to the insured, when a reasonable carrier in a similar position would have tendered a full payment in accordance with both the policy language and statutory requirements. 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)(c) and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), as well as Section I - Perils Insured Against, subsection 1, providing coverage for direct loss to property unless the damage was caused solely by an excluded or excepted cause of loss; and the loss payment provision under Section I - Conditions requiring payment of a claim within 90 days. All the aforementioned are part of what appears to be an ongoing pattern and practice of behavior of the carrier that it demonstrates a wanton and reckless disregard for the insureds’ rights and a pattern and practice of bad faith claims practices to its insureds across the state of Florida. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, the carrier must: 1.) Pay the complete covered loss in the amount of $43,625.57, 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 sent to the carrier. Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned or Devin Pruitt at (239) 488-6829 if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Michael Masci, Esq. Attorney at Law
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
mthornton@slideinsurance.com 02-03-2025 Via E-mail & Posting on DFS Website Michael Masci, Esq. Kanner & Pintaluga 925 S Federal Hwy Boca Raton, FL 33432 mmasci@kpattorney.com Complainant: Bahram Amiri Insured: Bahram Amiri Claim No: 202409004598 Policy No: SIC3076286 CRN Filing No.: 795737 Dear Michael Masci: Please allow this correspondence to serve as Slide Insurance Company’s (“Slide”)’s response to the Civil Remedy Notice (“CRN”) filed on behalf of Bahram Amiri (“Insured”). The CRN was accepted by the Department on December 6, 2024. Without waiving any objections to the sufficiency of the CRN, and specifically subject to a reservation of all rights and defenses herein, Slide denies all allegations that it violated Florida Statutes or other codes, regulations, and/or rules in this matter. Slide challenges the validity of the CRN as it fails to identify the specific policy terms the Insured claims Slide failed to follow, nor do the allegations as stated give rise to any violation of Florida law or insurance policy. See, e.g., Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So.3d 875, 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021); Demase v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company, 351 So.3d 136, 138-39 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022) (holding the trial court properly determined a civil remedy notice that failed to state with specificity the relevant policy language was legally insufficient). In fact, the CRN does not provide any specific facts material to the Insured’s claims, including the cause of the reported loss, timeline of the claim and alleged dispute, or scope of the claimed damages. For these reasons Slide asserts the CRN is deficient and should be returned by the Department. CLAIM FACTS Slide issued a homeowners’ insurance policy to the Insured for property located at 18 Ryland Drive, Palm Coast, Florida, in effect for the period from November 15, 2023 to November 15, 2024, (the “Policy”). On September 17, 2024, a representative from the Law Offices of Kanner & Pintaluga filed a claim on the Insured’s behalf for damage to the Insured’s property from roof leaks. The date of loss was reported as May 15, 2024. Slide acknowledged receipt of the claim and assigned a licensed field adjust to inspect the property. At the inspection on September 27, 2024, the filed adjuster met with the Insured who stated they were informed there were leaks in the family room and garage. The field adjuster noted water damage on the ceilings in the family room and garage. An inspection of the roof revealed approximately eleven (11) creased shingles on the roof. No openings were found on the roof or exterior elevations. In a letter dated October 16, 2024, the Insured was advised that repairs to the creased shingles on the roof were covered, however, the total cost of the repairs fell below the Policy’s deductible. The October 16th letter further explained that due to the lack of peril created openings to the roof, the interior staining was precluded from coverage pursuant to the terms, conditions, and exclusions of the Policy. No further communication was received from the Insured or their representatives until The Law Offices of Kanner & Pintaluga filed the instant Civil Remedy Notice on the Insured’s behalf on December 6, 2024. To date Slide has not received any information that would alter its understanding of the loss and coverage. In fact, the Insured has since filed a separate claim for damage to their roof, family room, and garage with a date of loss of October 9, 2024, for Hurricane Milton. All areas claimed in the Insured’s subsequent hurricane claim, which overlap with those asserted here, were addressed with regard to the October 9th loss. Slide maintains that it has acted in accordance with the terms of the subject insurance policy and the law in its adjustment of the claim. The facts and circumstances set forth in the CRN are misleading, vague, and incomplete. The Insured has presented no evidence to support the allegations of claim denial, claim delay, or unfair trade practice. Rather, the facts show Slide promptly investigated the loss and made communications as necessary to adjust the claim, in compliance with the Policy and Florida Statute. DENIAL OF ALL VIOLATIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTE The CRN asserts Slide violated §§ 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)(c), and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), Fla. Stats. Notwithstanding any challenges to the CRN’s legal sufficiency, and specifically subject to a reservation of all defenses and/or rights, Slide categorically denies all violations of Florida Statutes or any other codes, regulations, and/or rules in its handling of the subject loss. The underlying claim was adjusted in as thorough and expedient a manner as possible. The facts demonstrate Slide employed proper claims practices in the investigation including, but not limited to, a prompt inspection of the Insured’s property and timely communications with the Insured and/or their representatives. Following the claim investigation, the Insured was advised of the coverage decision and basis for same. The written explanation of the coverage decision and information upon which it was based was sent to the Insured and their attorney in accordance with Florida Statute. Thus, the violations asserted in the CRN are baseless and Slide asserts strict compliance with its statutory obligations. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the documented facts contradict all allegations that Slide has in any manner acted improperly or contrary to its contractual obligations to the Insured. In filing this response, Slide does not intend to waive any rights or defenses that it may have in law or the policy. Rather, Slide expressly reserves all such rights and defenses without exception or limitation. Should there be any questions or further inquiry with respect to this matter, please contact the undersigned at mthornton@slideinsurance.com. Sincerely, /s/ Marianne Thornton Marianne Thornton, Esq. Staff Counsel
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