Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     795768
Filing Accepted:  12/6/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
YOLI DA CRUZ   First Name   WILSON
Street Address * 3780 KILROY AIRPORT WAY SUITE 200
City, State Zip * LONG BEACH, CA 90806
Email Address * ELIZABETH@LEONIDASLAW.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   YOLI DA CRUZ   First Name   WILSON
Policy # * CIT08659600 Claim #* FPI247459
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* FARRUGIA First Name * ELIZABETH Initial M
Street Address* 3780 KILROY AIRPORT WAY SUITE 200
City, State Zip* LONG BEACH , CA 90806
Email Address * ELIZABETH@LEONIDASLAW.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):* NA
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
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)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g) Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim.
626.9541(1)(i)(4) Failing to pay undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed under first-party property insurance policies within 60 days after an insurer receives notice of a residential property insurance claim, determines the amounts of partial or full benefits, and agrees to coverage, unless payment of the undisputed benefits is prevented by factors beyond the control of the insurer as defined in s. 627.70131(5).
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

We cover: a. The dwelling on the "residence premises" shown in the Declarations, including structures attached to the dwelling. With respect to Paragraphs B. and C., coverage for loss caused by the peril of windstorm during a “hurricane occurrence” which occurs anywhere in the state of Florida, includes loss to: 1. The inside of a building; or 2. The property we cover 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 first damages the building, causing an opening through which the rain, snow, sleet, hail, sand or dust enters and causes damage.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Mr. Yoli Da Cruz's home was impacted by the heavy rain and winds accompanying Hurricane Milton. He timely reported the damage from the hurricane to his insurer. Florida Peninsula sent a field agent to inspect his home. The agent found damage to various areas to his home including, but not limited to roof truss(rafter), decking and underlayment. A claims construction company was sent to then do an estimate. The adjuster for the claims company refused to even inspect the ares complained of, including the roof truss and underlayment. She indicated that she was not climbing a ladder. Florida Peninsula did not provide proper acknowledgement for the reasoning that the claims rep did not provide an estimate for repair of these areas. When Mr. Yoli Da Cruz brought to Florida Peninsula's attention the discrepancy, they closed his file and refused to reopen it, thereby they did not attempt in good faith to settle his claim 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, as required by 624.155(1)(b)(1). Pursuant to Fla. Statute Section 624.155(1)(b)(3) Peninsula has failed to properly settle Mr. Yoli Da Cruz's claim given the above portion of the policy warrants them paying for repair of covered areas of the home. Pursuant to Florida Statue 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Peninsula failed to implement proper claims handling practices when it knew or should have known that the company it hired was incompetent to handle the evaluation of the damage, Further, Florida Peninsula violated Fla. Stat. Sec. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) when it denied Mr. Yoli Da Cruz's claim when it had an independent field inspector telling it the ares of the home that were damaged. Mr. Yoli Da Cruz's claim was denied despite him relaying over and over again that the problem areas were not repaired. Mr. Yoli Da Cruz was never given a single adjuster to work with and was not told of additional information to assist with processing of his claim. Florida Peninsula simply denied his claim pursuant to Fla. Strat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g). Pursuant to Fla. Stat. 626/9541(1)(i)(4) Florida Peninsula refused to pay for additional damage it was indisputably required to pay under the policy. It instead flatly refused to reopen the claim. If Florida Peninsula refuses to assess the additional damage done to Mr. Yoli Da Cruz's home under his policy, he will be filing suit against his insurer.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
april@zinoberdiana.com 02-03-2025 We represent Florida Peninsula Insurance Company (hereinafter, “Florida Peninsula”) in the dispute filed by you on behalf of Wilson Yoli Da Cruz as the Complainant (hereinafter, “Complainant”), against Florida Peninsula for Claim No. FPI247459. This correspondence constitutes Florida Peninsula’s Response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation which your office filed on behalf of the Complainants on December 6, 2024, with the Florida Department of Financial Services (“DFS”), DFS filing number 795768 (hereinafter, the “CRN”). While Florida Peninsula welcomes the opportunity to respond to this CRN, Florida Peninsula specifically denies each and every allegation contained in the CRN filed in relation to this claim. Further, Florida Peninsula asserts that the CRN should be rejected and returned by DFS, as the CRN fails to comply with the specific information requirements as set forth within § 624.155, Florida Statutes, and Florida case law, and is therefore facially invalid and deficient. I. The CRN fails to satisfy the requirements of Florida law. Concerning the contents of the CRN, the law requires strict compliance with the specificity requirements in § 624.155, Florida Statutes, which the CRN fails to satisfy. Both § 624.155(3), Florida Statutes, and the Civil Remedy Notice form require the Complainant to specifically state, among other things, the statutory provisions, including the specific language of the statute, which the insurer allegedly violated, the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation, the name of any individual involved in the violation, and the specific policy language that is relevant to the violation. Additionally, § 624.155(3)(b) mandates that the Civil Remedy Notice must be “on a form provided by the [Department] and shall state with specificity … such other information as the department may require.” (emphasis added). First and foremost, despite being required by the CRN form, the Complainant fails to provide the Complainant’s email address (instead only providing counsel’s email address) and fails to provide the correct address for the Complainant or the insured property (instead only providing counsel’s address). Moreover, in the section that requires the Complainant identify the person or persons representing the insurer who are most responsible for or knowledgeable of the facts giving rise to the allegations in this notice, the Complainant only states “NA.” This is clearly nonspecific, inaccurate, and fails to provide Florida Peninsula with a proper ability to identify the proper individuals. Accordingly, the CRN is clearly deficient and invalid. Further, the purpose of the specificity requirement for a civil remedy notice is to put the insurer on notice of an alleged violation, the circumstances surrounding same, and indicate the details of the alleged violation in order to provide an insurer with 60 days to “cure” the alleged claim defects and otherwise avoid litigation. See Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1283-4 (Fla. 2000); Rousso v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82328 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 13, 2010). Uninformative recitations that do not inform the insurer of the facts underlying the alleged violations or match up with the statutes that the complainant identifies as the statutes that were purportedly violated are insufficient to fulfill the requirements of § 624.155. Rousso, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82328. The CRN fails to meet the specificity requirements of § 624.155, Florida Statutes, and therefore is invalid and deficient. Notably, in contravention of the statutory and form requirements that a complainant must state the specific statutory provisions allegedly violated and the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation, the CRN identifies numerous statutory provisions, though they are not wholly relevant or applicable to the alleged facts or claimed violations contained in the CRN or fail to correlate with any specific facts or circumstances giving rise to the alleged violations. Likewise, the CRN identifies numerous “reason[s] for notice” without providing sufficient facts to support each. Additionally, 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, incomplete, generic, conclusory, and insufficient allegations with no basis in fact or circumstance, as well as omits specific facts to support its allegations of violations. The CRN includes a minimal information, commentary on unsupported, conclusory accusations, unqualified opinion, legal conclusions, conjecture, and inaccurate statements of facts cast in the light most favorable to the Complainant and his representatives. In short, the facts alleged are simply inaccurate, fail to paint a complete picture of the handling of this claim, fail to apprise Florida Peninsula of how its actions constituted a violation of said statutes, or were identified without any factual support. II. Despite the deficiencies, Florida Peninsula denies all allegations contained in the CRN. Notwithstanding the deficiencies in the CRN and without waiving the objections above, Florida Peninsula explicitly denies any violation of the Florida Statutes sections referenced in the CRN. Florida Peninsula hereby denies each and every allegation contained in the CRN, either explicitly or implicitly, and denies any wrongdoing in the handling of this matter. Rather, Florida Peninsula handled the claim both diligently and properly under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as well as in accord with Florida law. Florida Peninsula denies each and every allegation contained in the CRN and responds to them individually as follows: The Complainant lists numerous purported reasons for submitting the CRN which are 1) Claim Denial; 2) Claim Delay; 3) Unfair Trade Practice; and 4) Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer. As indicated in detail below, the CRN fails to establish or set forth any specific facts that would support the allegations asserted in support of the perceived violations and Florida Peninsula denies each and every allegation. Specifically, Florida Peninsula responds as follows: Allegation of Claim Denial: This allegation is wholly without basis in law or in fact and is therefore denied. Counsel for Complainant should immediately withdraw this allegation from the CRN as it cannot be established by any credible evidence. Florida Peninsula handled the claim both diligently and properly under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as well as in accord with Florida law, a proper determination of coverage was made based on a good faith investigation and the terms and conditions of the subject policy opening coverage (and therefore this “reason” is inapplicable), a good faith attempt to investigate this claim has and continues to be made, and at all times material to this claim, Florida Peninsula has and continues to act fairly and honestly towards the Insured and with due regard for the interests of the Insured, as it does on every claim. Allegation of Claim Delay: This allegation is without basis and thereafter denied. Complainant should immediately withdraw this allegation from the CRN as it cannot be established by any credible evidence. At all times material to this claim, Florida Peninsula acted timely, diligently, and responsibly in its pursuit of coverage. Notably, the claim was first reported to Florida Peninsula on October 10, 2024, Florida Peninsula immediately began its thorough investigation and issued its coverage determination letter and payment on November 25, 2024. At all times, Florida Peninsula has continuously acted promptly and timely with regards to all aspects of this claim. Moreover, any perceived delays alleged in the CRN are not due to the actions of Florida Peninsula, nor did Florida Peninsula have control over any actions causing any perceived delays. Further, claim delay, in and of itself, is not a valid reason for filing a CRN. Allegation of Unfair Trade Practice: This allegation is wholly without basis in law or in fact and is therefore denied. Counsel for Complainant should immediately withdraw this allegation from the CRN as it cannot be established by any credible evidence. Florida Peninsula handled the claim both diligently and properly under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as well as in accord with Florida law, a determination of coverage was made based on a good faith investigation and the terms and conditions of the subject policy, a good faith attempt to investigate this claim has and continues to be made, and at all times material to this claim, Florida Peninsula has and continues to act fairly and honestly towards the Insured and with due regard for the interests of the Insured, as it does on every claim. Allegation of Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer: This allegation is wholly without basis in law or in fact and is therefore denied. Complainant should immediately withdraw this allegation from the CRN as it cannot be established by any credible evidence. Florida Peninsula handled the claim both diligently and properly under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as well as in accord with Florida law, a determination of coverage was made based on a good faith and reasonable investigation and the terms and conditions of the subject policy and coverage opened and the appropriate corresponding payment issued, a good faith attempt to investigate this claim has and continues to be made, and at all times material to this claim, Florida Peninsula has and continues to act fairly and honestly towards the Insured and with due regard for the interests of the Insured, as it does on every claim. Moreover, “unsatisfactory” settlement offer, in and of itself, is not a valid reason for filing a CRN. Moreover, the subject CRN cites several statutes Florida Peninsula has allegedly violated. While Florida Peninsula categorically and unequivocally denies violating any statutes, Florida Peninsula will briefly address the specific statutes alleged to have been violated, in an abundance of caution. § 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 denies this allegation. The CRN sets forth no actual facts to support this allegation, only opinions as to how the Complainant believes the claim should have been resolved. The CRN also sets forth several inaccuracies and incomplete information regarding the claim based solely on unsupported opinions. Florida Peninsula retained a qualified independent adjuster to inspect the insured property in the subject claim. Additionally, Florida Peninsula made a determination of coverage on this claim based on the totality of its good faith investigation and the terms and conditions of the subject policy and Florida law and issued a prompt and detailed explanation to the Insured regarding its coverage determination along with the accompanying estimate for clarity purposes and the corresponding payment. While Florida Peninsula has and continues to make a good faith attempt to investigate this claim and has and continues to act fairly and honestly towards the Insured and with due regard for the interests of the Insured, Florida Peninsula is also not obligated to settle a claim in a matter beyond that which is covered under the terms, conditions and exclusions of the subject policy. The remainder of the CRN simply states disparaging and unsubstantiated opinions regarding Florida Peninsula and its agents assisting in the investigation of the subject claim. At no time has Florida Peninsula acted dishonestly or unfairly toward the Insured and/or his representatives. All actions have been performed in good faith for the purpose of moving the claim towards a just and equitable resolution. Florida Peninsula acted in accordance with Florida Statute § 624.155(1)(b)(1) and has in no way violated said statutory provisions. § 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 denies this allegation. The CRN sets forth no actual facts to support this allegation, only opinions as to how the Complainant believes the claim should have been resolved. The CRN also sets forth several inaccuracies and incomplete information regarding the claim based solely on unsupported opinions. Florida Peninsula retained a qualified independent adjuster to inspect the insured property in the subject claim. Additionally, Florida Peninsula made a determination of coverage on this claim based on the totality of its good faith investigation and the terms and conditions of the subject policy and Florida law and issued a prompt and detailed explanation to the Insured regarding its coverage determination along with the accompanying estimate for clarity purposes and the corresponding payment. While Florida Peninsula has and continues to make a good faith attempt to investigate this claim and has and continues to act fairly and honestly towards the Insured and with due regard for the interests of the Insured, Florida Peninsula is also not obligated to settle a claim in a matter beyond that which is covered under the terms, conditions and exclusions of the subject policy. The remainder of the CRN simply states disparaging and unsubstantiated opinions regarding Florida Peninsula and its agents assisting in the investigation of the subject claim. At no time has Florida Peninsula acted dishonestly or unfairly toward the Insured and/or his representatives. Moreover, it is unclear what other portions of the policy coverage Complainant claims Florida Peninsula was trying to influence the settlements of. All actions have been performed in good faith for the purpose of moving the claim towards a just and equitable resolution. Florida Peninsula acted in accordance with Florida Statute § 624.155(1)(b)(3) and has in no way violated said statutory provisions. § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for proper investigation of claims. Florida Peninsula denies this allegation. The CRN sets forth no actual facts to support this allegation, only opinions as to how the Complainant believes the claim should have been resolved. The CRN also sets forth several inaccuracies and incomplete information regarding the claim based solely on unsupported opinions. Florida Peninsula retained a qualified independent adjuster to inspect the insured property in the subject claim. Additionally, Florida Peninsula made a determination of coverage on this claim based on the totality of its good faith investigation and the terms and conditions of the subject policy and Florida law and issued a prompt and detailed explanation to the Insured regarding its coverage determination along with the accompanying estimate for clarity purposes and the appropriate corresponding payment. Florida Peninsula has and continues to make a good faith attempt to investigate this claim and has and continues to act fairly and honestly towards the Insured and with due regard for the interests of the Insured, Florida Peninsula is also not obligated to settle a claim in a matter beyond that which is covered under the terms, conditions and exclusions of the subject policy. The remainder of the CRN simply states disparaging and unsubstantiated opinions regarding Florida Peninsula and its agents assisting in the investigation of the subject claim. Florida Peninsula has always implemented standards for investigating and adjusting claims commensurate with the requirements of Florida Statutes, and it will continue to do so. All actions have been performed in good faith and for the purpose of moving the claim towards a just and equitable resolution. Florida Peninsula acted in accordance with Florida Statute § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) and has in no way violated said statutory provisions. § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information. Florida Peninsula denies this allegation. The CRN sets forth no actual facts to support this allegation, only opinions as to how the Complainant believes the claim should have been resolved. The CRN also sets forth several inaccuracies and incomplete information regarding the claim based solely on unsupported opinions. Florida Peninsula retained a qualified independent adjuster to inspect the insured property in the subject claim. Additionally, Florida Peninsula made a determination of coverage on this claim based on the totality of its good faith investigation and the terms and conditions of the subject policy and Florida law and issued a prompt and detailed explanation to the Insured regarding its coverage determination along with the accompanying estimate for clarity purposes and the appropriate corresponding payment. Notably, Florida Peninsula opened coverage and issued the corresponding payment for this claim. Therefore, it is clear that this section and statute does not even apply to this claim. While Florida Peninsula has and continues to make a good faith attempt to investigate this claim and has and continues to act fairly and honestly towards the Insured and with due regard for the interests of the Insured, Florida Peninsula is also not obligated to settle a claim in a matter beyond that which is covered under the terms, conditions and exclusions of the subject policy. The remainder of the CRN simply states disparaging and unsubstantiated opinions regarding Florida Peninsula and its agents assisting in the investigation of the subject claim. Florida Peninsula made the coverage determination after it conducted a reasonable investigation based upon available information. All actions have been performed in good faith for the purpose of moving the claim towards a just and equitable resolution. Florida Peninsula acted in accordance with Florida Statute § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) and has in no way violated said statutory provisions. § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g) Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim. Florida Peninsula denies this allegation. The CRN sets forth no actual facts to support this allegation. The CRN also sets forth several inaccuracies and incomplete information regarding the claim based solely on unsupported opinions. Florida Peninsula retained a qualified independent adjuster to inspect the insured property in the subject claim. Additionally, Florida Peninsula made a determination of coverage on this claim based on the totality of its good faith investigation and the terms and conditions of the subject policy and Florida law and issued a detailed explanation to the Insured regarding its coverage determination and appropriate corresponding payment. In Florida Peninsula’s communications and correspondences, Florida Peninsula provided reasonable and detailed explanations regarding its coverage determinations to the Insured and his representatives, explained what information was necessary, and explained why the requested information was necessary. While Florida Peninsula has and continues to make a good faith attempt to investigate this claim and has and continues to act fairly and honestly towards the Insured and with due regard for the interests of the Insured, Florida Peninsula is also not obligated to settle a claim in a matter beyond that which is covered under the terms, conditions and exclusions of the subject policy or without being given the opportunity to fully investigate the claim. The remainder of the CRN simply states disparaging and unsubstantiated opinions regarding Florida Peninsula and its agents assisting in the investigation of the subject claim. Florida Peninsula continuously provided clear communications and explanations to the Insured and his representatives regarding the investigation of the claim and additional information to be provided to Florida Peninsula to assist in the further and thorough investigation of the claim. All actions have been performed in good faith and for the purpose of moving the claim towards a just and equitable resolution. Florida Peninsula acted in accordance with Florida Statute § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g) and has in no way violated said statutory provisions. § 626.9541(1)(i)(4) Failing to pay undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed under first-party property insurance policies within 60 days after an insurer receives notice of a residential property insurance claim, determines the amounts of partial or full benefits, and agrees to coverage, unless payment of the undisputed benefits is prevented by factors beyond the control of the insurer as defined in s. 627.70131(5). Florida Peninsula denies this allegation. The CRN sets forth no actual facts to support this allegation, only opinions as to how the Complainant believes the claim should have been resolved. The CRN also sets forth several inaccuracies and incomplete information regarding the claim based solely on unsupported opinions. The claim was reported on October 10, 2024. Florida Peninsula made a determination of coverage on this claim based on the totality of its good faith investigation and the terms and conditions of the subject policy and Florida law, and issued detailed explanations to the Insured regarding its coverage determination and issued the appropriate corresponding payment on November 25, 2024, which is clearly within 60 days after receiving notice of the claim. Therefore, it is clear that Florida Peninsula complied with this statutory requirement. The inclusion of this statute and clear inapplicability shows the deficiency of this CRN as a failure to be specific with regards to the actual claims being brought. While Florida Peninsula has and continues to make a good faith attempt to investigate this claim and has and continues to act fairly and honestly towards the Insured and with due regard for the interests of the Insured, Florida Peninsula is also not obligated to settle a claim in a matter beyond that which is covered under the terms, conditions and exclusions of the subject policy. All actions have been performed in good faith for the purpose of moving the claim towards a just and equitable resolution. Florida Peninsula acted in accordance with Florida Statute § 626.9541(1)(i)(4) and has in no way violated said statutory provisions. Alleged Violations of Policy of Insurance The CRN requires the Complainant to reference the specific policy language that is relevant to the violation. The CRN only identifies limited specific language in the Policy. To the extent the Complainant subsequently intends to rely on specific additional policy provisions, he is precluded from doing so as he failed to properly include those provisions in the CRN. Notwithstanding, Florida Peninsula denies violating any provision or duty set forth in the policy. Alleged Factual and Circumstantial Support for the CRN A review of the facts and circumstances surrounding the investigation and claim decisions on the subject claim reveals Florida Peninsula acted in good faith and diligently investigated, handled, and adjusted the claim at issue in this dispute. Florida Peninsula acted fairly, honestly, and in good faith, acknowledged and acted promptly upon receipt of the claim, attempted in good faith to adjust the claim pursuant to the terms of the policy, took reasonable steps to investigate the claim, communicated reasonably and honestly with the Insured and the Insured’s representatives about the claim, and provided the Insured reasonable explanations for its actions. The subject claim involves alleged windstorm damage with a reported date of loss of October 9, 2024 (Hurricane Milton) to the property located at 1208 E. Crenshaw St., Tampa, FL 33604 (the “Property”) reported to Florida Peninsula on October 10, 2024. Florida Peninsula promptly responded with acknowledgement of the claim and the Homeowner Claims Bill of Rights and initiated its investigation of the claim, which included a reasonable and appropriate inspection of the Property by a qualified independent adjuster. Florida Peninsula made a determination of coverage on this claim based on the totality of its diligent, reasonable, and good faith investigation and the terms and conditions of the subject policy and Florida law. Based on the investigation, Florida Peninsula issued its coverage determination letter on November 25, 2024 providing a detailed explanation explaining the coverage determination and providing the accompanying estimate and statement of loss for the covered portions of the claimed loss in addition to the corresponding appropriate payment in the amount of $3,204.95 after taking into account the deductible. Florida Peninsula has continued to promptly and fairly adjust the claim as information is made available to it. Florida Peninsula promptly and honestly made all coverage determinations based on its reasonable investigation of the claim. Moreover, contrary to the Complainant’s claims, Florida Peninsula has and continues to promptly respond to all communications, communicate honestly with the Insured and his representatives, and conduct a fair and good faith ongoing investigation of the claim. There is no indication in the CRN nor anywhere within the record evidence to suggest that Florida Peninsula handled the subject claim in bad faith or incongruent with the applicable Florida Statutes. Rather, the record evidence establishes the opposite, and shows that Florida Peninsula properly handled and adjusted the subject claim and has continued to do so from the time it was first received through the present. Furthermore, under the circumstances, and upon information and belief, the filing of the CRN appears to be an effort to strong-arm Florida Peninsula into payment for repairs and excessive benefits for which the Complainant is not entitled under the policy. The disagreement with the claim decision does not in any way constitute bad faith on the part of Florida Peninsula. Under the circumstances presented, Florida Peninsula cannot in good faith issue a payment for damages that are claimed and demanded by the Complainant as doing so would, in essence, breach Florida Peninsula’s duty of good faith and fair dealing owed toward each and every one of its other policyholders. Accordingly, there is no evidence that Florida Peninsula has acted in any way, whatsoever, contrary to the terms of the policy or in violation of the statutes listed in the CRN. III. Demands to Cure Defects. Moreover, the CRN does not specify a cure for the alleged violations that comports with the provisions of the subject Policy. Further, the CRN requests “cures” that are improper according to Florida law and Fla. Stat. §624.155. See Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1281 (Fla. 2000). The Talat decision provides that a “cure” must be limited to contract damages. Additionally, Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, does not impose on an insurer the obligation to pay whatever its insured demands. Talat, 753 So. 2d at 1282. On the contrary, the Florida Supreme Court holds that the scope of what can be “cured” in responding to a Civil Remedy Notice, is limited to contractual amounts due to the insured. See Talat, 753 So. 2d at 1281. The subject Notice is deficient as it does not provide an opportunity to “cure” the alleged violations without imposing obligations on Florida Peninsula not owed or contemplated by the Policy. To the extent the CRN requests anything other than contract proceeds, the CRN is defective and should be rejected. The offer to cure in the CRN, rather, is illusory and even a reading of the CRN in a light most favorable to the Complainant requires that it be invalidated and rejected. Notably, the CRN wholly fails to include a cure demand, therefore making it impossible for Florida Peninsula to “cure” this CRN to the satisfaction of Complainant with the statutory time. Accordingly, the CRN is deficient and therefore invalid. Notwithstanding, based on its thorough investigation, the information received at this time, and the terms and conditions of the Policy, Florida Peninsula properly determined the appropriate amount of the covered claim and issued payment pursuant to the Policy and Florida law, therefore properly determining that no additional amounts are due and owing at this time. IV. Conclusion. In closing, Florida Peninsula first believes that the CRN does not comply with section 624.155, Florida Statutes, and should therefore be rejected and returned by DFS due to its failure to comply with § 624.155, Florida Statutes, and Florida case law. Regardless of the rejection and lack of compliance, Florida Peninsula denies all allegations contained in the CRN and submits there are no violations. While this Response is meant to be comprehensive, Florida Peninsula’s Response above is based upon the limited information provided in the CRN and the information we have to date. If the Complainant feels that we are not in possession of all the facts, please inform us immediately. Please note that Florida Peninsula’s Response is not necessarily exhaustive and does not preclude us from asserting any other valid reason for the lack of compliance with Florida Statute § 624.155. 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. We trust that this Response addresses the allegations of insurer violation alleged in the CRN filed on December 6, 2024. Should you have any questions regarding this matter or need anything further, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
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