Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     796191
Filing Accepted:  12/10/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
LAMPKINS-CRUMPTON   First Name   SHALANIA
Street Address * C/O CARRINGTON JONES, ESQ 3333 S. ORANGE AVE, SUITE 104
City, State Zip * ORLANDO, FL 32806
Email Address * CARRINGTON@MYLAWYERCAN.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   LAMPKINS-CRUMPTON   First Name   SHALANIA
Policy # * 80CTN9546 Claim #* 59-75F6-22G
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* JONES First Name * CARRINGTON Initial E
Street Address* 3333 S. ORANGE AVE, SUITE 104
City, State Zip* ORLANDO , FL 32806
Email Address * CARRINGTON@MYLAWYERCAN.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10739
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* ALYSSA CHANDLEE
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
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)(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)(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)(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).
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i) Failing to pay personal injury protection insurance claims within the time periods required by s. 627.736(4)(b).
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

State Farm Florida Insurance Company policy 80CTN9546 provides coverage to Shalania Lampkins-Crumpton for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage A. As such, this is an “all perils” policy and all such losses described above are covered unless they are specifically excluded.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

On or about October 10, 2024, Shalania Lampkins-Crumpton (“Insureds”) suffered significant Hurricane Milton damage to their home located at 1639 Trumbo Court, Winter Garden, FL 34787. Prior to the loss, State Farm Florida Insurance Company policy 80CTN9546 provides coverage to Shalania Lampkins-Crumpton for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage A. As such, this is an “all perils” policy and all such losses described above are covered unless they are specifically excluded. State Farm Florida Insurance Company issued a homeowner’s insurance policy (policy no. 80CTN9546) for the Insureds’ home. The policy was in effect on the date of loss and affords coverage for Hurricane Milton damage. After providing notice of the loss, the insureds cooperated with State Farm Florida Insurance Company policy 80CTN9546 provides coverage to Shalania Lampkins-Crumpton for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage A and under the policy. As such, this is an “all perils” policy and all such losses described above are covered unless they are specifically excluded. The Insured(s) cooperated with the investigation of the claim and allowed State Farm Florida Insurance Company to inspect the damages on 10/29/2024. Despite State Farm Florida Insurance Company acknowledging a significant amount of covered damage, State Farm Florida Insurance Company refused to tender full payment to bring the insureds to pre-loss condition. This is a pattern and practice of State Farm Florida Insurance Company, finding that an Insureds damages fell below their deductible and or significant under valuing damages. The insureds home have sustained significant damage which far exceeds their deductible. Specifically the insureds known damage total $55,859.25. Fla. Stat. § 624.155. Fla. Stat. 624.155 provides a cause of action for bad faith in first-party claims. Fridman v. Safeco Ins. Co., 185 So. 3d 1214, 1220 (Fla. 2016). These first-party claims are treated the same as third-party claims. Id. at 1221. The question of whether an insurer acted in bad faith is determined by the “totality of the circumstances” standard. Berges v. Infinity Ins. Co., 896 So. 2d 665, 680 (Fla. 2004). This inquiry focuses on the actions of the insurer. Id. at 677. The insurer has a duty to use the degree of care and diligence as a person of ordinary care. Bos. Old Colony Ins. Co. v. Gutierrez, 386 So. 2d 783, 785 (Fla. 1980). The insurer must investigate the facts, give fair consideration to all settlement offers, and settle when a reasonable prudent person would. Id. Additionally, an insurer must not act solely in their own interest in settlement. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. LaForet, 658 So.2d 55, 58 (Fla. 1995). Furthermore, the insurer has the burden to show that there was no realistic possibility of settlement. Powell v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 584 So. 2d 12, 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). 624.155(1)(b) claims: [624.155(1)(b)(1)]: Insurer, State Farm Florida Insurance Company, acted in bad faith under Fla. Stat. 624.155(1)(b)(1) in their dealings with the Insureds by failing to attempt to settle the Insureds’ claims when it could and should have done so had it acted fairly and honestly toward the insured. As such, the insurer must promptly and immediately settle the claim. 624.155(1)(a)(1) claims: Fla. Stat. § 624.155(1)(a)(1) grants a cause of action against an insurer for unfair insurance trade practices under Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i). Contrary to the language of the statute, a remedy exists even “without proof that the insurer committed unfair or deceptive acts with such frequency as to constitute a general business practice.” Dadeland Depot, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 945 So. 2d 1216, 1232 (Fla. 2006). Here, State Farm Florida Insurance Company’s actions constituted bad faith under 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a). [626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a)]: Pursuant to Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), an insurer must adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. Plaintiff may bring a civil action for damages caused by the failure to adopt such standards. Fla. Stat. § 624.155(1)(a)(1). Here, the facts of this loss investigation indicate that Insurer does not have adequate standards for the proper investigation of claims. Here, Insurer has failed to assign competent and unbiased claims personnel. State Farm Florida Insurance Company has not acted honestly or fairly towards its Insureds. State Farm Florida Insurance Company policy 80CTN9546 provides coverage to Shalania Lampkins-Crumpton for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in under coverage A and the policy in its entirety. As such, this is an “all perils” policy and all such losses described above are covered unless they are specifically excluded. State Farm Florida Insurance Company and its adjusters misrepresented the scope and cause of damages to the residence and misapplied exclusions in the policy, namely wear and tear, and “long term” damage, in order to deny or underpay coverage for the majority of the Insureds claim in order to ensure its valuation of the claim would be significantly less than the cost of repair. As is the case here, it has become a general business practice of State Farm Florida Insurance Company to not implement proper claims handling procedures, to hire consultants that routinely ignore or intentionally misidentify relevant evidence, and to not settle claims in good faith when under all circumstances it should have. State Farm Florida Insurance Company regularly undervalues claims in order to avoid issuing payment on losses that it knows are covered under the policy. State Farm Florida Insurance Company also routinely refuses to pay claims in full when it has the ability to do so, waits to see if its insureds contest their coverage determination, as was necessary here, and, only then, will it capriciously invoke appraisal. State Farm Florida Insurance Company knows that by opening up a small amount of coverage, it can maintain its ability to demand appraisal later on and deprive its Insured access to the courts. Its insureds are then forced to pay the cost of their own appraiser and potentially an umpire, which can total several thousands of dollars, before it is ever willing to perform repairs or issue benefits that were already owed under the policy. State Farm Florida Insurance Company has developed this deliberate strategy in order to deter its Insureds from challenging its coverage determinations and hinder their ability to seek additional payment for monies owed under the policy. State Farm Florida Insurance Company’s practice of not adjusting losses in good faith in accordance with section 627.70131, Florida Statues, unnecessarily delays resolution of its claims and leaves claimants like the Insureds with no choice but to incur further time and expense just to be fully indemnified pursuant to the terms of their contract with State Farm Florida Insurance Company. State Farm Florida Insurance Company has completely abdicated its duty to adjust and has put the onus on its Insureds to spend thousands of dollars in appraisal before State Farm Florida Insurance Company is willing to issue benefits or make repairs that it knows are owed pursuant to the policy. State Farm Florida Insurance Company’s pattern and practice of underrepresenting the actual cost and cause of damages, then demanding appraisal if challenged, is evidence that it does not act fairly or honestly towards the Insured during its adjustment process and that it has failed to implement proper standards for the investigation and handling of its claims. State Farm Florida Insurance Company did not apply appropriate standards in order to properly investigate claims such as the Loss at the Home, which ultimately led to its unfair and dishonest adjustment of the Loss. State Farm Florida Insurance Company has implemented a strategy and approach to the Loss that is unfair and has not attempted to settle the Loss that that the Insured has suffered and continues to suffer. State Farm Florida Insurance Company can cure its bad faith conduct by: 1) accepting the insured’s claim as compensable, and agreeing to pay the claim in accordance with its loss settlement provision prior to the expiration of the cure period, 2) reaching an amicable settlement of the pending claim prior to the expiration of the cure period, or 3) paying the amount of the estimate for damages ($55,859.25) submitted by the insured to State Farm Florida Insurance Company less the insured’s deductible. By doing any of these three things, the insurer will cure its bad faith in this case and extinguish any and all of its liability for all bad faith damages which could be sought pursuant to this Civil Remedy Notice.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
Carrington@mylawyercan.com 09-11-2025 This CRN is hereby withdrawn.
mfuller@kpsds.com 01-29-2025 VIA E-Mail Only Carrington E. Jones, Esq. Law Offices of Carrington Jones 3333 S Orange Ave., Ste. 104 Orlando, Florida 32806 carrington@mylawyercan.com Re: Insured: Shalania Lampkins-Crumpton Claim No.: 59-75F6-22G DFS Filing No.: 796191 Dear Mr. Jones: As you know, we represent State Farm Florida Insurance Company (“State Farm”) regarding the above-referenced matter. We are in receipt of the Civil Remedy Notice (“CRN”) you filed on behalf of your client, Shalania Lampkins-Crumpton (the “Insured”), against State Farm on December 10, 2024, with a DFS Filing Number 796191. Please allow this correspondence to serve as State Farm’s response to the CRN. The stated reasons for the CRN are listed as claim delay and unfair trade practice. The CRN claims State Farm violated Florida Statutes: 624.155(1)(b)(1); 624.155(1)(b)(3); 626.9541(1)(i)(2); 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a); 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b); 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c); 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d); 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g); 626.9541(1)(i)(4); and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i). As a preliminary matter, State Farm denies it violated the statutes cited in the CRN. As of the date of this correspondence, we note that you provided no new information regarding these allegations since the time of State Farm’s initial response to the CRN and request for information dated December 13, 2024. Specifically, we had requested that you provide us with any factual information to support the allegations in the CRN. We indicated that we would be happy to review any details you may have supporting these allegations. As an initial matter, the CRN is deficient and fails to comply with Florida law. The purpose of a Civil Remedy Notice is to provide an insurer with a chance to settle the claim and avoid unnecessary litigation. See Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000); see also, The Heritage Corporation of South Florida v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, P.A., 580 F.Supp. 2d 1294 (S.D. Fla. 2008). In furtherance of this purpose, § 624.155(3)(b), Florida Statutes requires that a Civil Remedy Notice “state with specificity” the statutory provisions 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 relevant to the violation. See, Junior Julien v. United Property and Casualty Insurance Company, No. 4D19-2763 (Fla. 4th DCA September 23, 2020); Fox v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., No. 8:16-CV-3254-T-23MAP, 2017 WL 1541294, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2017). The CRN is deficient as it fails to specifically state any policy language from the subject policy of insurance. A copy of the Insured’s policy of insurance was provided to your office on or about December 11, 2024. Rather than identify the specific policy language relevant to the statutory violations alleged in the CRN as required by Florida law, the CRN references the “Coverage A” section absent any explanation as to how State Farm failed to comply with the terms of the policy and/or any specific language in the policy pertaining to the alleged incident and/or statutory violations. The mere allegation that State Farm has failed to settle the claim in good faith without providing further analysis or discussion by citing the specific, applicable policy language, directly contradicts the requirements for a Civil Remedy Notice set forth in § 624.155(3)(b), Florida Statutes. Further, the “facts and circumstances” section of the CRN is not in compliance with Florida law. Contrary to the requirements of Florida Statutes, the CRN makes false, boilerplate accusations, and does not contain any specific facts supporting the violations alleged. For example, the CRN fails to provide any factual support for various allegations regarding State Farm’s alleged claim delay and unsatisfactory settlement offer, or its alleged violations of those statutory provisions noted above and in the CRN. As more fully discussed below, the allegations contained within the CRN are untrue, and the CRN contains no facts to support them. Although the CRN alleges that State Farm has “refused to tender full payment” for the Insured’s claim, the following summary demonstrates that State Farm has acted responsibly and in good faith during the investigation and handling of this claim. The failure to provide any factual support for the alleged violations of Florida statutes renders the CRN deficient and in violation of Florida Statute § 624.155(3)(b). Not waiving the aforesaid CRN deficiencies, it appears on October 10, 2024, a claim was reported for wind damage sustained to the insured property located at 1639 Trumbo Street, Winter Garden, Florida 34787 (the “Property”) as a result of Hurricane Milton. A date of loss of October 10, 2024 was provided by the Insured at the time of reporting. State Farm was granted access to inspect the Property on or about November 4, 2024. During the inspection, wind damage was observed to 14 roofing shingles. State Farm provided coverage for a roof repair for this damage. Additionally, covered interior water damage was discovered in the dining room, living room, hallway, and bedroom of the Property. These findings were explained to the Insured in State Farm’s line-item estimate dated November 14, 2024. State Farm’s provided coverage in the amounts of $5,229.34 (Replacement Cost Value) and $4,656.75 (Actual Cash Value). On December 10, 2024, your office filed a Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation (the “Notice”) in connection with the subject claim. Attached to the Notice was an estimate, prepared by an unknown individual and/or company, for a full roof replacement and for repairs to numerous interior rooms beyond the original scope of reporting of the Insured’s claim. Based on this new information, State Farm re-evaluated the claim and determined there was additional coverage. State Farm’s correspondence and estimate, dated December 13, 2024, explain that coverage was extended in the amounts of $15,840.45 (Replacement Cost Value) and $15,268.80 (Actual Cash Value) for the Insured’s claim. The CRN states “claim delay” as a reason for notice. The CRN does not directly make any allegations regarding any specific delay by State Farm in connection with its handling of the Insured’s claim. The CRN alludes to the argument that State Farm delayed the claim by “refus[ing] to tender full payment” and that this is an intentional pattern and practice by State Farm to “wait to see if its insureds contest their coverage determination” and attempt to force the claim to appraisal. However, the facts outlined above in this response clearly demonstrate that State Farm timely and properly adjusted the Insured’s claim based on the information available to it at the time of reporting. Moreover, the facts demonstrate that State Farm has not acted in manner to hinder, delay or frustrate the claim process for the Insured’s claim. State Farm opened full coverage for the Insured’s claim and timely tendered payment to the Insured. In addition, upon receipt of new claim information, State Farm re-evaluated the Insured’s loss and opened additional coverage for the claim. Further, State Farm has not invoked appraisal for this loss. Therefore, the CRN’s allegation of claim delay is wrongful. Second, the CRN states “unfair trade practice” as a reason for notice and alleges that State Farm found the Insured’s damages to be “below the deductible” and that State Farm “acted in bad faith … in their dealings with the Insureds by failing to attempt to settle the Insureds’ claims when it could and should have done so had it acted fairly and honestly toward the insured.” However, the claim facts establish that State Farm properly rendered its coverage decision based upon a completion of its investigation of the Insured’s claim and provided coverage beyond the policy’s hurricane deductible amount and timely tendered payments to the Insured. The CRN also wrongfully accuses State Farm of “not hav[ing] adequate standards for the proper investigation,” of “misrepresent[ing] the scope and cause of damage” and mentions policy exclusions for “wear and tear” and “long-term damage.” Yet, State Farm did not deny the Insured’s claim. Rather, coverage was opened in full for the subject loss. The factual evidence outlined in this response clearly shows the CRN’s allegations are nothing more than boilerplate verbiage. Further, the CRN alleges violations of: 1. Section 624.155 (1)(b)(1), Florida Statutes, 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. State Farm denies violation of section 625.155 (1)(b)(1), F.S., because it made a good faith effort to appropriately investigate and evaluate the Insured’s claim. State Farm has, at all times, acted in accordance with the terms, conditions, and coverages of the insurance policy. State Farm inspected the subject property, reviewed all the documents and information provided and advised of its evaluation and coverage determination in compliance with the policy. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting the Insured’s allegations have been set forth in the Notice and thus, this allegation of a statutory violation is denied. The CRN fails to provide facts or information to support this alleged violation. 2. Section 624.155 (1)(b)(3), Florida Statutes, 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 settlement under other portions of the insurance policy coverage. State Farm denies violation of section 625.155 (1)(b)(3), F.S. because it made a good faith effort to appropriately investigate and evaluate the Insured’s claim. State Farm has, at all times, acted in accordance with the terms, conditions, and coverages of the insurance policy. State Farm inspected the subject property, reviewed all the documents and information provided and timely advised of its evaluation and coverage determination in compliance with the policy. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting the Insured’s allegations have been set forth in the Notice and thus, this allegation of a statutory violation is denied. The CRN fails to provide facts or information to support this alleged violation. 3. Section 626.9541(1)(i)(2), Florida Statutes, 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. State Farm denies violation of section 626.9541(1)(i)(2) F.S., because it made a good faith effort to appropriately investigate and evaluate the Insured’s claim. State Farm has, at all times, acted in accordance with the terms, conditions, and coverages of the insurance policy. State Farm inspected the subject property, reviewed all the documents and information provided and advised of its evaluation and coverage determination in compliance with the policy. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting the Insured Insured’s allegations have been set forth in the Notice and thus, this allegation of a statutory violation is denied. The CRN fails to provide facts or information to support this alleged violation. 4. Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), Florida Statutes, failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. State Farm denies violation of section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), F.S. because it made a good faith effort to appropriately investigate and evaluate the Insured’s claim. State Farm has, at all times, acted in accordance with the terms, conditions, and coverages of the insurance policy. State Farm inspected the subject property, reviewed all the documents and information provided and advised of its evaluation and coverage determination in compliance with the policy. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting the Insured’s allegations have been set forth in the Notice and thus, this allegation of a statutory violation is denied. The CRN fails to provide facts or information to support this alleged violation. 5. Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), Florida Statutes, misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. State Farm denies violation of section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), F.S. because it made a good faith effort to appropriately investigate and evaluate the Insured’s claim. State Farm has, at all times, acted in accordance with the terms, conditions, and coverages of the insurance policy. State Farm inspected the subject property, reviewed all the documents and information provided and advised of its evaluation and coverage determination in compliance with the policy. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting the Insured’s allegations have been set forth in the Notice and thus, this allegation of a statutory violation is denied. The CRN fails to provide facts or information to support this alleged violation. 6. Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), Florida Statutes, failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. State Farm denies violation of section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), F.S., because State Farm has, at all times, acted in accordance with the terms, conditions, and coverages of the insurance policy. State Farm inspected the subject property, reviewed all the documents and information provided and timely advised of its evaluation and coverage determination in compliance with the policy. State Farm also promptly responded and attempted to contact the Insured or her representatives to discuss the claim. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting the Insured’s allegations have been set forth in the Notice. Thus, this allegation of a statutory violation is denied. The CRN fails to provide facts or information to support this alleged violation. 7. Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), Florida Statutes, denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information. State Farm denies violation of section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), F.S., because it made a good faith effort to appropriately investigate and evaluate the Insured’s claim. State Farm has, at all times, acted in accordance with the terms, conditions, and coverages of the insurance policy. State Farm inspected the subject property, reviewed all the documents and information provided and advised of its evaluation and coverage determination in compliance with the policy. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting the Insured’s allegations have been set forth in the Notice and thus, this allegation of a statutory violation is denied. The CRN fails to provide facts or information to support this alleged violation. 8. Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g), Florida Statutes, failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim. State Farm denies violation of section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g), F.S., because it made a good faith effort to appropriately investigate and evaluate the Insured’s claim. State Farm has, at all times, acted in accordance with the terms, conditions, and coverages of the insurance policy. State Farm inspected the subject property, reviewed all the documents and information provided and timely advised of its evaluation and coverage determination in compliance with the policy. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting the Insured’s allegations have been set forth in the Notice and thus, this allegation of a statutory violation is denied. The CRN fails to provide facts or information to support this alleged violation. 9. Section 626.9541(1)(i)(4), Florida Statutes, failing to pay undisputed amount of partial or full benefits owed under first-party property insurance policies within 60 days after an insurer received 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). The facts show that State Farm timely adjusted the Insured’s claim in compliance with Florida statutes and law. Factual evidence in support of State Farm’s timely adjustment of the loss is set forth in this response. Thus, this allegation of a statutory violation is denied. The CRN fails to provide facts or information to support this alleged violation. 10. Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i), Florida Statutes, failing to pay personal injury protection insurance claims within the time periods required by s. 627.736(4)(b). State Farm denies violation of section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i) because this matter does not and has never involved a claim for personal injury protections. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting the Insured’s allegations have been set forth in the Notice and thus, this allegation of a statutory violation is denied. The CRN fails to provide facts or information to support this alleged violation. In closing, the claim facts demonstrate that State Farm has fully and properly adjusted the claim in accordance with the insurance policy and Florida law to the best of its ability. Additionally, State Farm has handled this claim in the appropriate manner and in good faith, doing everything it could reasonably do to timely and properly investigate the Insured’s claim and pay benefits where owed. Further, State Farm has acted at all times fairly and honestly towards the Insured and in the best interests of the Insured, consistent with the terms and conditions of the contract for insurance and Florida law. For the reasons set forth above, State Farm denies the allegations contained in the CRN. However, we would welcome the opportunity to review any additional information you may have that you believe supports your client’s position. Should you have any documents or other information that State Farm has not had the opportunity to review, please provide those at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, /s/ M. Megan Fuller M. Megan Fuller MMF cc: Client
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