Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     796718
Filing Accepted:  12/13/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
QUEEN   First Name   GINGER
Street Address * 444 CONOVER AVENUE NE
City, State Zip * PALM BAY, FL 32907
Email Address * CFAUNTLEROY@FSATLAW.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   QUEEN   First Name   GINGER
Policy # * FPH5524319-00 Claim #* FPI244949
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* FAUNTLEROY First Name * CHRISTOPHER Initial B
Street Address* 100 S ASHLEY DRIVE, SUITE 600
City, State Zip* TAMPA , FLORIDA 33602
Email Address * CFAUNTLEROY@FSATLAW.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):* STEVEN HORSCHEL, ERIC ELLIS, MIGUEL MEDINA FLORIDA PENINSULA INSURANCE COMPANY AND ITS ADJUSTER
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
Unfair Trade Practice
Claim Delay
* 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.
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)(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)(g) Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h) Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Specific policy language that is relevant to this violation: SECTION I – _PERILS INSURED AGAINST COVERAGE A – _DWELLING and COVERAGE B – _OTHER STRUCTURES 1. We insure for sudden and accidental direct loss to property described in Coverages A and B only if that loss is a physical loss to covered property. I. Loss Payment II. Loss Settlement ***ADDITIONAL STATUTORY PROVISIONS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN VIOLATED ARE AS FOLLOWS:*** §624.155(1)(B)(1) Any person may bring a civil action against an insurer when such person is damaged: By the commission of any of the following acts by the insurer: 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 towards its insured and with due regard for her interests; 2. Making claims payments to insures or beneficiaries not accompanied by a statement setting forth the coverage under which payments are being made; or 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. §624.155 (5) No punitive damages shall be awarded under this section unless the acts giving rise to the violation occur with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice and these acts are: (a) Willful, wanton, and malicious; (b) In reckless disregard for the rights of any insured; or (c) In reckless disregard for the rights of a beneficiaries under a life insurance contract; (8) The damages recoverable pursuant to this section shall include those damages which are a reasonably foreseeable result of a specified violation of this section by the authorized insurer and may include an award or judgment in an amount that exceeds the policy limits. §627.70131 Insurer’s duty to acknowledge communications regarding claims; investigation (1)(a) Upon an insurer’s receiving a communication with respect to a claim, the insurer shall, within 14 calendar days, review and acknowledge receipt of such communication unless payment is made within that period of time or unless the failure to acknowledge is caused by factors beyond the control of the insurer which reasonably prevent such acknowledgement. If the acknowledgement is not in writing, a notification indicating acknowledgement shall be made in the insurer’s claim file and dated. A communication made to or by an agent of an insurer with respect to a claim shall constitute communication to or by the insurer. (4) For purposes of this section, the term “insurer” means any residential property insurer. §626.9541(i) Unfair Claim Settlement Practices
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. Florida Peninsula Insurance Company (Florida Peninsula) has breached this duty in the adjustment of Ginger Queen’s (Queen’s) claim. Furthermore, Florida Peninsula has engaged in unfair claim delay; has used business or outcome-oriented investigations and experts to determine the outcome of the claim; has wrongfully denied the claim without fully stating reasons and reserving unwritten reasons; has looked for ways to, delay payment and otherwise “stonewall” the claim; and has used improper claims practices to rush the claims process and profit from wrongful claims practices. Queen’s claim results from hail and wind damage which resulted in subsequent water and roof leak damage to her home that occurred on or around May 10, 2024, which consequentially resulted in extensive damage to the roof of the property and ceiling of the property. In order to immediately mitigate the damages to her home, Queen contacted her insurance company, Florida Peninsula, to report the damages to her home. As part of their investigation, Florida Peninsula assigned a claim number FPI244949 and claims adjuster Miguel Medina and Steven Horschel to adjust the loss. As part of the investigation of Queen’s claim, Florida Peninsula inspected the damages to Queen’s home. Subsequently, Florida Peninsula sent correspondence on September 30, 2024, denying Queen’s claim without providing any monetary compensation to repair the damages to return Queen’s property back to pre-loss condition. In view of the foregoing, it is clear and unequivocal that Florida Peninsula has failed to provide proper and sufficient compensation to repair the damages caused to the Queen’s property. Due to Florida Peninsula’s handling of the Queen’s claim, Queen chose to retain a public adjuster to further assess the damages to her home. As such, upon inspection and view of the damages, it was clear that the entire dwelling roof elevations and interior ceiling required extensive repair. After the inspection, the public adjuster provided an estimate for repairs in the amount of $43,264.03 which is the full amount to return Queen’s home back to pre-loss condition. Florida Peninsula continues to hold their stance for their claim determination concerning Queen’s loss. Queen has complied with all conditions under the policy. Nonetheless, Florida Peninsula failed to properly compensate Queen for her loss. The facts of this claim show that for whatever reason, Florida Peninsula not only substantially misinterpreted the scope of damages to Queen’s property, but also failed to conduct a thorough investigation as to the scope of damages to the roof and elevations. Upon view of Florida Peninsula’s claims handling procedures, it is clear Florida Peninsula conducted a limited and quick outcome orientated investigation in the hopes that Queen would make the required repairs with her own money. Queen now must incur costs for assistance to obtain what should have been paid had she been treated fairly and honestly by Florida Peninsula. Florida Statute §626.9744(2) provides that “When a loss requires replacement of items and the replaced items do not match in quality color or size, the insurer shall make reasonable repairs or replacement of items in adjoining areas.” In the instance of Florida Peninsula, their adjusters and the estimate provided, it is clear that Florida Peninsula did not adhere to Florida law, as their estimate provides paltry repair items that would result in mismatching areas which fails to acknowledge the true extent of damage of Queen’s home as well as the surrounding areas that would need to be replaced. Florida Statute §624.02, defines “insurance” as a contract where one undertakes to indemnify another or pay or allow specified amounts, or a determinable benefit, upon determinable contingencies – inherent is the fact that payment must be made timely and promptly. The fact that payment must be made timely and promptly so that the insured may mitigate their damages, and to put the insured back into the position they enjoyed prior to the loss as quickly as possible. Florida Peninsula has breached this duty by improperly investigating Queen’s claim and failing to properly pay Queen for her loss. Florida Peninsula has refused and/or failed to tender insurance proceeds as required by the policy and/or Florida law. It has refused and/or failed to settle the claim when under all the circumstances it could have and should have done so if it had acted fairly and honestly towards Queen. Florida Peninsula has failed to adopt and implement proper standards for investigation, evaluation, and adjustment of claims; has failed to properly train, manage, supervise, and promote claims adjusters so that policy holder receives good faith, fair, prompt adjustment of claim, service, and indemnity, has failed to conduct a full and fair investigation of the claim In view of the facts surrounding Queen’s claim, it is evident that Florida Peninsula has failed to create and implement adequate guidelines for proper investigations to evaluate claims handling for training and supervision of employees in violation of Fla. Stat. §624.155 and §626.9541 statutory regulations, as well as the applicable provisions in the Florida Administrative Code resulting in the statute violations set forth herein. As stated, Florida Peninsula has failed and/or refused to investigate the insured’s claim thoroughly, accurately, and completely for damages. Florida Statutes Violated by Florida Peninsula are as applied to the facts in this matter is as follows: § 626.951 engaging in acts defined as “unfair trade practices” relating to the business of insurance in accordance with the intent of congress as expressed in the act of congress of March 9, 1945 (pub. L. No. 15, 79th congress), by defining, or providing for the determination of, all such practices in this state which constitute unfair methods of competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices and by prohibiting the trade practices so defined or determined. § 624.155(1)(b)(1) to tender all insurance proceeds monies due and owing the insured or assist the insured in the mitigation of their damages. The insurer breached these statutory duties. Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all circumstance, insurer could have and should have done so, had the insurer acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard. § 624.155(1)(b)(3) failing to promptly settle claims, when the obligation to settle the 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 investigations of claims. § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)c Failing to acknowledge and to act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. In view of the fact’s of Queen’s claim, Florida Peninsula has failed to adopt and implement proper standards for investigation, evaluation and adjustment of claims; has failed to properly train, manage, supervise and promote claims adjusters so that policy holder receives good faith, fair, prompt adjustment of claim, service and indemnity; has failed to conduct a full and fair investigation of the claim and has failed to provide full reasons and facts to the claimant for delay of the claim resulting in statutory violations as set forth in this notice. Their actions are willful, wanton and in disregard of the rights of its insured and occur with such a frequency as to indicate a general business practice. Florida Peninsula can cure this default by the following: A. Create, adopt and implement adequate standards and/or guidelines for the proper investigation and adjustment of claims. B. Provide sufficient training and supervision of employees and agents to avoid further violations as set forth in the paragraphs above from occurring in the future. C. Tender payment to Queen in the amount of $43,264.03 which is the amount to return Queen’s home back to pre-loss condition. D. Tender prejudgment interest from the date the claim was reported through today. E. Agree to pay Queen’s reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to Florida Statute §627.428 and all taxable costs.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
jbosch@qpwblaw.com 02-05-2025 VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION: civilremedy@myfloridacfo.com Florida Department of Insurance Civil Remedy Section 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Complainant: Ginger Queen (“Complainant[s]” or “Insured[s]”) Claim No: FPI244949 (“Subject Claim”) Policy No: FPH5524319-00 (“Policy”) Loss Location: 444 Conover Ave NE Palm Bay, FL 32907 (“Property”) CRN Filing No: 796718 CRN Acceptance Date: 12/13/2024 Dear Sir or Madam: The undersigned counsel represents Florida Peninsula Insurance Company (“Florida Peninsula”) regarding the alleged dispute in connection with claim number FPI244949, involving a roof leak claim with a date of loss of September 9, 2024, and made under the policy of insurance FPH5524319-00. Please accept this correspondence as Florida Peninsula’s response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (“CRN”) filed with the Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) by attorney Christopher B. Fauntleroy, Esq. on behalf of the Complainant, Ginger Queen, and accepted for filing by the DFS on December 13, 2024 (CRN filing number 796718). The Complainant has alleged violations of various statutory provisions in CRN filing number 796718 dated December 13, 2024. Specifically, the Complainant alleges violations of the following statutory provisions: 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 Complainants’ allegation that it has violated the above referenced statute. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. Florida Peninsula specifically denies the Complainants’ allegation that it has violated the above referenced statute. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b): Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. Florida Peninsula specifically denies the Complainants’ allegation that it has violated the above referenced statute. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c): Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. Florida Peninsula specifically denies the Complainants’ allegation that it has violated the above referenced statute. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d): Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information. Florida Peninsula specifically denies the Complainants’ allegation that it has violated the above referenced statute. 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. Florida Peninsula specifically denies the Complainants’ allegation that it has violated the above referenced statute. 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 specifically denies the Complainants’ allegation that it has violated the above referenced statute. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h): Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary. Florida Peninsula specifically denies the Complainants’ allegation that it has violated the above-referenced statute. 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., (Fla. 4th DCA 2020). 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 Insured 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 Insureds’ 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 Complainants are 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, including but not limited to its specific denials of the allegations that it has not attempted in good faith to settle the Insureds’ claim and that it failed to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications related to the Subject Claim. Moreover, Florida Peninsula specifically denies that it denied the Subject Claim without conducting a reasonable investigation, that it failed to implement standards for the proper investigation of claims, and that it misrepresented pertinent facts relating to coverages at issue. Accordingly, without waiver of its objections, rights and defenses, Florida Peninsula maintains that it has acted and continues at all times to act in good faith during the investigation and adjustment of the Insureds’ 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. Moreover, as stated in Demase v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company (Fla. 5th DCA November 14, 2022), as a condition precedent to bringing a first-party bad faith case, an insured must provide timely notice of the alleged violation to the authorized insurer and to the DFS. 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 Insureds failed to include in the CRN. Specifically, Florida Peninsula promptly assigned claim number FPI244949 to the subject claim upon receiving first notice of loss of same on September 19, 2024. On the very next day, Florida Peninsula sent the insured an e-mail acknowledging the claim, informing the insured of who the adjuster was and providing the adjuster’s contact information, as well as informing that the adjuster would be in touch with him within the next 24-48 hours to set an inspection. Upon receiving notice of the claim, Florida Peninsula retained Allcat Claims Service, to inspect and evaluate the Insured’s property and reported damages. On September 25, 2024, Matt Heidinger, the Independent Adjuster, inspected the property on the carrier’s behalf. On September 30, 2024, Florida Peninsula issued a coverage determination letter to the insureds stating that based on the property inspection from the field adjuster, information obtained from the insured and information obtained through weather data research and the terms of the policy, there was no coverage for the claim due to no peril created opening. The pertinent policy language was included with the coverage determination letter. On December 2, 2024, the insureds sent correspondence disputing the decision not to cover the claim. On December 11, 2024, Florida Peninsula issued correspondence to the insureds stating that after review of the claim file, they were standing firm on their original decision stated in the letter dated September 30, 2024. In the letter, they further explained that they had not been provided with any additional information or documentation from the insureds showing any new evidence or reason to alter their previous decision. On December 13, 2024, this Civil Remedy Notice was filed. Florida Peninsula respectfully denies any wrongdoing in the adjustment and handling of the Subject Claim and denies any and all allegations that it committed any acts or violated any Florida statutes. Instead, Florida Peninsula acted quickly and responsibly, in good faith 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. Contrary to the allegations that Florida Peninsula violated various statutes in the CRN, at all times Florida Peninsula has acted in good faith with respect to every aspect of its investigation of the claim and has also acted fairly and honestly toward its Insureds and with due regard for their interests. Insofar as Florida Peninsula denies the accusations made in the subject CRN, to the extent Florida Peninsula can identify that which needs to be “cured” and/or “remedied,” through the course of this response, such matters are “cured” or “remedied.” 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 Insured and its representatives and its inspection of the property. Florida Peninsula made a coverage determination and informed the Insured based on the inspection and investigation of the claim. 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. As such, Florida Peninsula respectfully denies any wrongdoing in the adjustment and handling of the Subject Claim and denies any and all allegations that it committed any acts or violated any Florida statutes or other laws. With the aforementioned facts established, coupled with the Insured’s failure to provide specific facts relating to the Subject Claim to support or justify the alleged violations in the CRN, said CRN is baseless and without merit. In light of the Insured’s failure to comply with the requirements of the Civil Remedy Notice Statute, Florida Peninsula is unable to fully address the Insured’s allegations in the Subject CRN. Quite plainly, at all times Florida Peninsula has acted quickly and responsibly, in good faith 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. Further, Florida Peninsula completed its investigation and provided a coverage decision within the statutory time frame, effectively rendering all allegations set forth in the Insured’s CRN moot and unfounded. The Complainant’s CRN presumes to prescribe how Florida Peninsula can cure the alleged violations in the CRN. In the context of a first-party insurance claim, the contractual amount due to the insured is the amount owed pursuant to the express terms and conditions of the policy after all of the conditions precedent of the insurance policy in respect to payment are fulfilled....” As a result, only the demanded “cures” relating to the payment for covered damages are proper and legal. See Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. , 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). Further, 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). Here, the CRN here does not serve this purpose because it does not provide a proper means whereby Florida Peninsula can “cure” the alleged defects, short of paying additional benefits which are not due and owing for the Subject Claim. 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 Enterprises. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 952 F. Supp. 773, 777-778 (M. D. Fla. 1996). ] Here, Florida Peninsula properly adjusted the Subject Claim and timley investigated same. Further, the Insureds have not produced any evidence that they are entitled to any payments. As such, Florida Peninsula denies all of the allegations contained in the subject CRN, which is defective and improper, as Florida Peninsula has not violated any statutes. 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 Florida Peninsula 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). Based on the foregoing, 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. Contrary to the allegations that Florida Peninsula violated various statutes in the CRN, at all times Florida Peninsula has acted in good faith with respect to every aspect of its investigation of the Subject Claim and has also acted fairly and honestly toward its Insured and with due regard for her interests. Insofar as Florida Peninsula denies the accusations made in the subject CRN, to the extent Florida Peninsula can identify that which needs to be “cured” and/or “remedied,” through the course of this response, such matters are “cured” or “remedied.” In closing, Florida Peninsula believes that the CRN should be rejected and returned by the DFS 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 subject CRN and submits that there are no statutory violations. While the foregoing response by Florida Peninsula is meant to be comprehensive, it is based upon the limited information provided in the CRN and the information in Florida Peninsula’s possession to date. If the Complainants feel that Florida Peninsula is not in possession of all the relevant facts, please inform the undersigneded immediately. Please also note that this response is not necessarily exhaustive and does not preclude Florida Peninsula from asserting any other valid reason for seeking rejection and return of the CRN. Also, neither this response or any act or failure to act on the part of Florida Peninsula, or any agent or representative of Florida Peninsula, should 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. 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. on behalf of Florida Peninsula Insurance Company
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