Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     797281
Filing Accepted:  12/18/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
SAVICKAS   First Name   PAMELA
Street Address * 6340 COCOA LN
City, State Zip * APOLLO BEACH, FL 33572
Email Address * PAMELASAVICKAS@GMAIL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   SAVICKAS   First Name   PAMELA
Policy # * FPH5359439-02 Claim #* FPI 247227 & FPI245761
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* BOYNTON First Name * SEAN Initial
Street Address* 6340 COCOA LN
City, State Zip* APOLLO BEACH , FL 33572
Email Address * SEAN@KINGDOMCOMPREHENSIVE.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):* UNKNOWN
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
* Statutory provision(s) which the insurer allegedly violated.
 
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.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

COVERAGE C - PERSONAL PROPERTY We insure for sudden and accidental direct physical loss to the covered property described in Coverage C caused by a peril listed below unless the loss is excluded in SECTION I - EXCLUSIONS 2. Windstorm or Hail.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Florida Peninsula had an adjuster come out and take pictures after the storms. The adjuster, Brian Huffty, took photos of all damage to the property from both Hurricane Helene and Hurricane Milton. Florida peninsula did not ensure an adjuster came out after the Helene to take pictures damage, even after the area was forecasted to sustain another direct hit from Hurricane Milton, instead, Brian Huffty came out after Milton. Florida Peninsula denied all but the roof claim for Helene - which was NOT the cause of the damage to the home that was recorded in his report. Florida Peninsula told the insured that Brian Huffty would be the adjuster for both storms. Since the adjuster had come out for both storms, the insured started the restoration work on the home. Florida Peninsula did not ask for additional information or make any attempt in good faith to ask the insured which storm cause what damage. Florida Peninsula then decided Brian Huffty was not going to be the adjuster for both storms and sent a second adjuster out to the property over 40 days after Milton, and after restoration work was underway, to take pictures of the damage caused by Milton. Since the work was already underway, much of the damage was not observable. Florida Peninsula then denied all but the roof claim for Milton stating 1 - that no observable damage was shown in the second adjuster's report, and 2 - that several items on the report were from flood damage (which was only an issue during Helene) and not Milton. Florida Peninsula did not request additional information from the insured on which storm caused which damage and never asked for pictures of proof. Further, Florida Peninsula failed and refused to provide the insured with Brian Huffty's report and refused to reference Brian Huffty's report - that documented all of the damage from both storms when stating that "no observable damage" was noted for several items in the Milton adjuster’s report.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
shannon@zinoberdiana.com 02-07-2025 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). Notably, 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 “UNKNOWN.” 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 a certain statutory provision, though it is not wholly relevant or applicable to the alleged facts or claimed violations contained in the CRN or fails 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 her representatives. In short, the facts alleged are simply inaccurate, fail to paint a complete picture of the handling of the claims, 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 claims 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 the following purported reason for submitting the CRN which is 1) Claim Denial. 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 both claims 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 for both claims were made based on a good faith investigation and the terms and conditions of the subject policy opening coverage for the covered portion of the claimed damage, a good faith attempt to investigate the claims has and continues to be made, and at all times material to the claims, 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, the subject CRN cites a statute Florida Peninsula has allegedly violated. While Florida Peninsula categorically and unequivocally denies violating any statutes, Florida Peninsula will briefly address the specific statute alleged to have been violated, in an abundance of caution. § 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. The CRN also sets forth several inaccuracies and incomplete information regarding the claims based solely on unsupported opinions. Florida Peninsula retained a qualified independent adjuster to inspect the insured property in the subject claims. Additionally, Florida Peninsula made a determination of coverage on the claims 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 in both claims along with the accompanying estimate for clarity purposes and the corresponding payment for the coverage portion of the claimed damage. While Florida Peninsula has and continues to make a good faith attempt to investigate the claims 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 claims. At no time has Florida Peninsula acted dishonestly or unfairly toward the Insured and/or her 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 claims 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. 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 for Coverage C – Personal Property in the Policy. To the extent the Complainant subsequently intends to rely on specific additional policy provisions, she 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 claims at issue in this dispute. Florida Peninsula acted fairly, honestly, and in good faith, acknowledged and acted promptly upon receipt of the claims, attempted in good faith to adjust the claims pursuant to the terms of the policy, took reasonable steps to investigate the claims, communicated reasonably and honestly with the Insured and the Insured’s representatives about the claims, and provided the Insured reasonable explanations for its actions. The subject claims involve alleged windstorm damage from back to back hurricanes (Hurricane Helene on September 26, 2024 and Hurricane Milton on October 10, 2024) to the property located at 6340 Cocoa Ln, Apollo Beach, FL 33572 (the “Property”). Florida Peninsula promptly responded with acknowledgement of the claim and the Homeowner Claims Bill of Rights and initiated its investigation of the claims, which included reasonable and appropriate inspections of the Property by qualified independent adjusters. Florida Peninsula made a determination of coverage on both claims based on the totality of its diligent, reasonable, and good faith investigation and the terms and conditions of the subject policy and Florida law. As well-known, Florida had three back-to-back hurricanes in 2024. After the Insured reported the Hurricane Helene claim, Florida Peninsula made its best efforts to inspect the Property; however, Florida Peninsula was unable to do so before Hurricane Milton occurred. Notwithstanding, Florida Peninsula continued in its efforts to immediately have the Property inspected by independent adjusters. Accordingly, the Property was inspected by qualified adjusters on October 16, 2024 and December 5, 2024 to observe all claimed damage. Based on the investigation, Florida Peninsula issued its coverage determination letter for the Hurricane Helene claim on November 14, 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 payments in the amount of $521.86 for Coverage A Dwelling and $5,786.00 for Coverage A Matching of Undamaged Property (specifically regarding the observed roof damage to the Property) after taking into account the deductible. The coverage determination also explained that the claimed damage attributable to flooding was not covered by the Policy. Moreover, on December 9, 2024, Florida Peninsula issued its coverage determination letter for the Hurricane Milton claim explaining that the only observed covered damage was to the roof, and the roof was addressed in the Hurricane Helene claim. The claim determination also explained that flooding was not covered by the Policy. Florida Peninsula has continued to promptly and fairly adjust the claims as information is made available to it. Florida Peninsula promptly and honestly made all coverage determinations based on its reasonable investigation of the claims. Moreover, contrary to the Complainant’s claims, Florida Peninsula has and continues to promptly respond to all communications, communicate honestly with the Insured and her representatives, and conduct a fair and good faith ongoing investigation of the claims. There is no indication in the CRN nor anywhere within the record evidence to suggest that Florida Peninsula handled the subject claims 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 they were 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 claims decisions 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 portions of the damage related to the claims 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 18, 2024.
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