Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     797736
Filing Accepted:  12/20/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
LARSON   First Name   BLAKE
Street Address * 2600 COFFEE POT BLVD NE
City, State Zip * SAINT PETERSBURG, FL 33704
Email Address * WITHHELD
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   LARSON   First Name   BLAKE
Policy # * FPH5557446-00 Claim #* FPI250566
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* MULLINAX First Name * MATTHEW Initial
Street Address* 908 W HORATIO ST
City, State Zip* TAMPA , FLORIDA 33606
Email Address * MATT@MAKRISMULLINAX.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):* SHALANAR ROBINSON & GRACE REINHART
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
Claim Delay
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
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)(e) Failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and, as to partial coverage, the dollar amount or extent of coverage, or failing to provide a written statement that the claim is being investigated, upon the written request of the insured within 30 days after proof-of-loss statements have been completed.
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.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(j) Altering or amending an insurance adjuster’s report without: (I) Providing a detailed explanation as to why any change that has the effect of reducing the estimate of the loss was made; and (II) Including on the report or as an addendum to the report a detailed list of all changes made to the report and the identity of the person who ordered each change; or (III) Retaining all versions of the report, and including within each such version, for each change made within such version of the report, the identity of each person who made or ordered such change;
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

THE PERILS INSURED AGAINST SECTION. THE LOSS PAYMENT PROVISION. THE LOSS SETTLEMENT PROVISION. THE POLICY PROVISIONS CITED IN ANY LETTERS FROM FLORIDA PENINSULA INSURANCE COMPANY (“FPIC”) TO THE INSURED OR THE INSURED’S REPRESENTATIVES. ANY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE POLICY WHICH FPIC BELIEVES LIMIT OR PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR THE INSURED’S LOSS. FLORIDA STATUTES, WHICH ARE INCORPORATED INTO ALL POLICIES IN FLORIDA.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

THE INSURED PURCHASED, AND FLORIDA PENINSUAL INSURANCE COMPANY (“FPIC”) SOLD, FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION OF A POLICY PREMIUM, A HOMEWNERS POLICY OF INSURANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2600 COFFEE POT BLVD NE, SAINT PETERSBURG, FLORIDA. FPIC SOLD THE INSURED A POLICY NUMBERED ABOVE, WHICH BECAME EFFECTIVE AUGUST 9, 2024. WHILE THE POLICY WAS IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT, ON OR ABOUT OCTOBER 10, 2024, THE INSURED PROPERTY SUFFERED DAMAGE AS A RESULT OF A COVERED PERIL. HURRICANE MILTON STRUCK THE PROPERTY, AND COVERED DAMAGE OCCURRED. THE INSURED TIMELY REPORTED THE CLAIM TO FPIC, AND FPIC ASSIGNED CLAIM NUMBER FPI250566 TO THE LOSS. FPIC ACCEPTED COVERAGE FOR THE LOSS. WHILE FPIC ACCEPTED COVERAGE FOR THE LOSS, FPIC ALSO DENIED COVERAGE (1) BY NOT INCLUDING NECESSARY REPAIRS IN THE ADJUSTMENT, AND (2) BY NOT DETERMINING THE PROPER AMOUNT NEEDED FOR THE REPAIRS THAT FPIC DID INCLUDE. FPIC ESTIMATED THE AMOUNT FOR REPAIRS TO BE $1,079.88, AND FOOD LOSS IN THE AMOUNT OF $500.00, FOR A TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT OF $1,579.88. AFTER THE TWO APPLICABLE DEDUCTIBLES FOR DWELLING AND FOOD LOSS, DEFENDANT ISSUED PAYMENT OF $400.00 TO THE INSURED. THE ADJUSTER SENT TO INSPECT THE PROPERTY, WHO MET WITH THE INSURED’S REPRESENTATIVES AND ESTIMATED THE DAMAGE WAS DREW HARKLAU, LICENSE NUMBER E150857. THIS ESTIMATE WAS NEVER PROVIDED. INSTEAD, FPIC PROVIDED AN ESTIMATE PREPARED BY A GRACE REINHART, LICENSE NUMBER G051833, WHO HAS NOT VISITED THE PROPERTY AND WHOSE IDENTITY IS UNKNOWN. THIS COULD EXPLAIN THE GROSS UNDERVALUE OF THE LOSS BY FPIC, AND AN EXPLANATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED BY FPIC FOR WHY AN ADJUSTER WHO DID NOT INSPECT ESTIMATED THE DAMAGE. THE INSURED RETAINED HIS OWN PROFESSIONALS, INCLUDING OPINION FROM AN ENGINEER AS TO CAUSATION AND EXTENT OF DAMAGE, QUOTES FOR WINDOW REPAIRS, AND PHOTOGRAPHS AND COMPREHENSIVE ESTIMATE PREPARED BY A LICENSED ADJUSTER RETAINED BY THE INSURED. THE INSURED’S ADJUSTER ESTIMATED THE FULL COST OF RETURNING THE PROPERTY TO ITS PRE-LOSS CONDITION TO BE $749,271.88. THIS ESTIMATE WAS PROVIDED TO FPIC WITH A SWORN STATEMENT IN PROOF OF LOSS BUT TO DATE FPIC HAS REFUSED TO ISSUE PAYMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ESTIMATE. THE INSURED HAS, AND CONTINUES TO, COMPLY WITH ALL DUTIES AFTER LOSS UNDER HIS POLICY OF INSURANCE. FPIC HAS DELAYED THE ADJUSTMENT OF THIS CLAIM BY NOT INITIALLY ESTIMATING THE PROPERTY COST OF REPAIRS, BY NOT ACCEPTING AND ISSUEING PAYMENT FOR THE ESTIMATE PREPARED BY THE INSURED’S ADJUSTER, AND FOR NOT ACKNOWLEDGING THE PROPERTY BEING A TOTAL LOSS AS DEFINED BY FLORIDA STATUTE § 627.702, AND THEN ISSUEING THE FULL LIMIT OF THE POLICY AS REQUIRED BY STATUTE. PINELLAS COUNTY HAS DETERMINED THAT THE DOLLAR AMOUNT LIMIT OF REPAIRS THAT CAN BE MADE TO THIS STRUCTURE IS $537,603.00. REPAIRS COSTING IN EXCESS OF $537,603.00 WILL NOT BE APPROVED AND WILL REQUIRE THE PROPERTY TO BE BROUGHT TO COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY AS DICTATED BY THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, STATE OF FLORIDA, AND PINELLAS COUNTY. DUE TO IT NOT BEING STRUCTURALLY OR FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE TO BRING THIS PROPERTY TO THE ELEVATION REQUIREMENT FOR WHERE IT IS LOCATED (AMONG OTHER CURRENT REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE NOT POSSIBLE), THIS ESSENTIALLY MAKES THE PROPERTY A TOTAL LOSS. THIS IS COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS THE FEMA 50% RULE, RELATED TO SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENTS AND DAMAGE DETERMINATIONS. FLORIDA STATUTE § 627.702 STATES IN PART WITHIN SUBSECTION (1)(A): “IN THE EVENT OF THE TOTAL LOSS OF ANY BUILDING, STRUCTURE, MOBILE HOME AS DEFINED IN S. 320.01(2), OR MANUFACTURED BUILDING AS DEFINED IN S. 553.36(13), LOCATED IN THIS STATE AND INSURED BY ANY INSURER AS TO A COVERED PERIL, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CHANGE INCREASING THE RISK WITHOUT THE INSURER’S CONSENT AND IN THE ABSENCE OF FRAUDULENT OR CRIMINAL FAULT ON THE PART OF THE INSURED OR ONE ACTING IN HER OR HIS BEHALF, THE INSURER’S LIABILITY UNDER THE POLICY FOR SUCH TOTAL LOSS, IF CAUSED BY A COVERED PERIL, SHALL BE IN THE AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR WHICH SUCH PROPERTY WAS SO INSURED AS SPECIFIED IN THE POLICY AND FOR WHICH A PREMIUM HAS BEEN CHARGED AND PAID.” APPLICATION OF FLORIDA STATUTE § 627.702 TO THE FACTS OF THIS CLAIM, SHOW THAT BECAUSE THE ESTIMATED COST OF REPAIRS FROM THIS CLAIM ALONE IS $749,271.88, AND PINELLAS COUNTY WILL NOT APPROVE REPAIRS IN EXCESS OF $537,603.00 BEFORE REQUIRING THE PROPERTY TO BROUGHT TO CURRENT CODE, AND BECAUSE IT IS NOT STRUCTURALLY OR FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE TO BRING THE EXISTING STRUCTURE TO CURRENT CODE, THE INSURED PROPERTY IS A TOTAL LOSS AND FLA. STAT. § 627.702, DICTATES THAT FPIC’S LIABILITY UNDER THE POLICY FOR THE LOSS CAUSED BY A COVERED PERIL IS . ACCORDINGLY, FPIC’S REQUIRED INDEMNIFICATION FOR THIS CLAIM IS THE FULL VALUE OF THE POLICY FOR THIS CLAIM, WHICH IS $1,600,000.00. THE FOLLOWING IS ALLEGED UPON INFORMATION AND BELIEF. THESE ACTIONS DESCRIBED ABOVE, AND OTHERS THAT OCCURRED IN THIS CLAIM, AMOUNT TO A FAILURE TO ADJUST THE INSURED’S CLAIM IN GOOD FAITH. FPIC’S REFUSAL TO CONDUCT A REASONABLE INVESTIGATION BASED UPON AVAILABLE INFORMATION AND FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY THE INSURED FOR THE DAMAGE AND COVERED LOSS UNDER THE POLICY ISSUED BY FPIC EXHIBITS BAD FAITH. FURTHER, FPIC FAILED TO COMPLY WITH ITS LOSS SETTLEMENT PROVISION. RATHER THAN ISSUING THE PROPER PAYMENT OR ATTEMPTING TO REACH AN AGREEMENT WITH ITS INSURED, FPIC DENIED, UNDERPAID, AND DELAYED THE CLAIM. UPON INFORMATION AND BELIEF, FPIC PERFORMS THE SUBJECT ACTIONS AS A BUSINESS PRACTICE, INCLUDING DELAYING THE CLAIM AND PARTIALLY DENYING THE CLAIM IN AN ATTEMPT TO DISSUADE ITS INSURED FROM PURSUING THE CLAIM TO THE DETRIMENT OF ITS INSURED AND TO INCREASE FINANCIAL PROFITS. THE INSURED IS CONSIDERING ALL AVAILABLE OPTIONS FOR REPAIRS AND RESTORING THE PROPERTY TO ITS PRE-LOSS CONDITION AS A RESULT OF THE DAMAGE FROM THIS CLAIM. ONE OF THESE OPTIONS INCLUDES DEMOLITION OF SOME OR ALL OF THE INSURED STRUCTURE. THIS NOTIFICATION IS BEING PROVIDED TO FPIC SO THAT FPIC MAY CONDUCT ANY ADDITIONAL INSPECTIONS IT FEELS ARE NEEDED FOR ANY REASON RELATED TO THE POLICY OR PENDING CLAIMS, AND TO PREVENT ANY SPOLIATION ARGUMENT BY FPIC AT ANY POINT IN THE FUTURE. AN EXACT TIMEFRAME FOR WHEN THIS DECISION OR POTENTIAL DEMOLITION MAY OCCUR CANNOT BE GIVEN, AS THE SITUATION IS FLUID, HAPPENING IN REAL TIME, AND DICTATED BY THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY, FLORIDA LAW, AND THE FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS CREATED BY THIS LOSS. ACCORDINGLY, SHOULD FPIC WISH TO INSPECT THE DWELLING IT SHOULD NOTIFY BOTH THE INSURED’S PUBLIC ADJUSTER AND THE FILER OF THIS NOTICE IN WRITING (EMAIL IS SUFFICIENT) WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS. DURING THAT TIME INSPECTION REMAINS POSSIBLE BUT AFTER THAT TIME, THERE CAN BE NO GUARANTEE THE HOME WILL BE AVAILABLE TO INSPECT. IN NOTIFYING FPIC OF THIS, THE INSURED IS COMPLYING WITH ANY DUTIES AFTER LOSS UNDER THE POLICY OF INSURANCE. IN THE EVENT FPIC BELIEVES THIS CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE LACKS INFORMATION NECESSARY FOR FPIC TO CURE THE DEFECTS OUTLINED IN THIS NOTICE, OR THAT IT LACKS REQUIRED SPECIFICS IN ANY WAY, FPIC SHOULD CONTACT THE FILER OF THIS NOTICE DIRECTLY AND ALERT THEM TO THAT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, PRIOR TO ANY FORMAL RESPONSE. THIS NOTICE IS FILED AND GIVEN TO FPIC TO PERFECT THE RIGHT TO PURSUE THE CIVIL REMEDY THAT SECTION 624.155 AUTHORIZES. TO CURE THE DEFECTS OUTLINED IN THIS CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE, FPIC MUST: (1). ADMIT FULL COVERAGE FOR THE INSURED’S LOSS; (2). INITIALLY AND IMMEDIATELY THE FULL VALUE OF THE PUBLIC ADJUSTER’S ESTIMATE, $749,271.88, LESS ANY APPLICABLE DEDUCTIBLE. (3). DEEM THE PROPERTY A TOTAL LOSS UNDER FLORIDA STATUTE § 627.702, AND ISSUE THE REMAINING COVERAGE A LIMIT, FOR A TOTAL CLAIM PAYMENT OF $1,600,000.00, LESS ANY APPLICABLE DEDUCTIBLE. (3). PAY STATUTORY INTEREST ON THE AMOUNT OF UNPAID CONTRACT DAMAGES FROM THE DATE OF THE LOSS TO THE PRESENT TIME PURSUANT TO F.S. §627.70131. A COPY OF THIS FORM SUBMITTED TO THE FDFS HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE FOLLOWING PARTIES PROVIDING THEM NOTICE OF THE FILING OF THE CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE: FLORIDA PENINSULA INSURANCE COMPANY VIA EMAIL TO: CLAIMS@FLORIDA PENINSULA.COM
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
shannon@zinoberdiana.com 02-25-2025 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). In the section that requires the Complainant include his email address, Complainant failed to provide same and instead responded “WITHHELD”. This is clearly noncompliant with the form requirements rendering the CRN deficient. 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 (essentially every potential statute), 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 lengthy 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) Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer; and 4) Unfair Trade Practice. 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 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. Moreover, as explained in the coverage determination letter, damage from the Insured’s Hurricane Helene claim cannot be estimate again in the Hurricane Milton claim. In sum, the policy provides coverage for certain events and excludes others. Declining coverage on the claim based on the policy does not equate to an exercise in bad faith by Florida Peninsula. Allegation of Claim Delay: This allegation is without basis and therefore 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. At all times, Florida Peninsula has continuously acted promptly and timely with regards to all aspects of this claim. Notably, the claim was first reported on October 21, 2024 and Florida Peninsula issued its coverage determination on November 21, 2024. 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 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 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. Moreover, “unsatisfactory” settlement offer, 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. Moreover, the subject CRN cites numerous 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 detailed explanation to the Insured regarding its coverage determination. 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 detailed explanation to the Insured regarding its coverage determination. 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)(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. Florida Peninsula denies this allegation. The CRN sets forth no actual or accurate 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 an 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. 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. Moreover, the CRN fails to identify and explain what in particular Florida Peninsula allegedly misrepresented and how any statements made by Florida Peninsula constituted misrepresentations. On the contrary, at no time has Florida Peninsula acted dishonestly or unfairly toward the Insured and/or his representatives. Florida Peninsula has not made misrepresentations to the Insured and/or his representatives. 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)(2) 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 detailed explanation to the Insureds regarding its coverage determination. 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 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)(b) Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. 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 an honest and detailed explanation to the Insured regarding its coverage determination. 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. Moreover, the CRN fails to identify and explain what in particular Florida Peninsula allegedly misrepresented and how any statements made by Florida Peninsula constituted misrepresentations. On the contrary, at no time has Florida Peninsula acted dishonestly or unfairly toward the Insured and/or his representatives. Florida Peninsula has not made misrepresentations to the Insured and/or his representatives. 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)(b) and has in no way violated said statutory provisions. § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims Florida Peninsula denies this allegation. The CRN sets forth no actual accurate facts to support this allegation. The CRN also sets forth several inaccuracies and incomplete information regarding the claim based solely on unsupported opinions. After the claim was reported, Florida Peninsula immediately began its thorough investigation and issued its coverage determination letter promptly and timely. Additionally, Florida Peninsula promptly acted and responded to all received documents and information provided with regards to the 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. Notably, the CRN wholly fails to identify any specific communications which Florida Peninsula did not promptly respond to or acknowledge. On the contrary, Florida Peninsula has, in fact, communicated promptly with the Insured and his representatives. 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)(c) 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 and conducted a reasonable investigation of the 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. 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)(e) Failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and, as to partial coverage, the dollar amount or extent of coverage, or failing to provide a written statement that the claim is being investigated, upon the written request of the insured within 30 days after proof-of-loss statements have been completed. 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 promptly and timely issued its coverage determination and all communications to the Insured in accordance with statutory requirements. The claim was reported on October 21, 2024 and the claim determination letter was issued on November 21, 2024. Notably, the CRN’s inclusion of this statute implies that the Insuredss provided Florida Peninsula with a statement of loss and that Florida Peninsula did not properly respond; however, in actuality the proof of loss was provided to Florida Peninsula on December 19, 2024, clearly the day before this CRN was filed. This was clearly after Florida Peninsula had issued its coverage determination, 30 day clearly could not have expired, and shows a lack of transparency in the allegations of the CRN. On the contrary, Florida Peninsula has repeatedly complied with all requirements for timely providing its coverage determination letter and issuing communications to the Insureds. 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 § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e) and has in no way violated said statutory provisions. § 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 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 detailed explanation to the Insured regarding its coverage determination. 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. Notably, Florida Peninsula provided the Insured with its detailed coverage determination, providing the basis for its decision, and the applicable policy language. On the other hand, the Complainant fails to specify how or why the communications from Florida Peninsula were not sufficient other than essentially disagreeing with the decision. 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)(f) 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. In Florida Peninsula’s communication, Florida Peninsula provided a reasonable explanation regarding its coverage determination to the Insured and his representatives and explained what information was necessary for Florida Peninsula to investigate the 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. At no time has Florida Peninsula acted dishonestly or unfairly toward the Insured and/or his representatives. 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)(3)(h) Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary. 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 an independent adjuster to inspect the insured property in the subject claim. 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. 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)(h) and has in no way violated said statutory provisions. § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(j) Altering or amending an insurance adjuster’s report without: (I) Providing a detailed explanation as to why any change that has the effect of reducing the estimate of the loss was made; and (II) Including on the report or as an addendum to the report a detailed list of all changes made to the report and the identity of the person who ordered each change; or (III) Retaining all versions of the report, and including within each such version, for each change made within such version of the report, the identity of each person who made or ordered such change. 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. In Florida Peninsula’s communication, Florida Peninsula provided a reasonable and honest explanation regarding its coverage determination to the Insured and his representatives and provided the proper estimate. 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. 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)(j) and has in no way violated said statutory provisions. Alleged Violations of Policy of Insurance The CRN requires the Complainant to include the specific policy language that is relevant to the violation. Rather than complying with this requirement, the CRN only generally and vaguely refers to: The Perils Insured Against Section; The Loss Payment Provision; The Loss Settlement Provision; The Policy Provisions cited in any letters from Florida Peninsula Insurance Company to the Insured or the Insured’s Representatives; and Any Other Provisions of the Policy which Florida Peninsula believes limit or provide coverage for the Insured’s Loss. This is clearly improper, nonspecific, over generalized, and noncompliant with the CRN requirements. The failure to comply with this requirement or to provide factual support as to what and how Florida Peninsula purportedly violated the policy prevents Florida Peninsula from engaging in any meaningful review of the policy terms and conditions or actions that the Complainant takes issue with and addressing any issues regarding the policy. Florida Peninsula cannot hit a moving target by attempting to determine what provisions of the policy are actually at issue. As for public policy, this appears to be the exact purpose for the statutory requirements referenced above, which you have violated by failing to accurately provide the policy provisions at issue. Moreover, 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 (Hurricane Milton) damage with a reported date of loss of October 10, 2024 to the property located at 2600 Coffee Pot Blvd NE, Saint Petersburg, FL 33704 (the “Property”) first reported to Florida Peninsula on October 21, 2024. At the time of reporting the Hurricane Milton claim, the Insured claimed that the related damage was wind damage to his roof and leaking, the tiles were falling on the ground, and his ceiling was leaking in several spots. 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 an 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. Significantly, the Insured also made a claim for roof and related interior water damage from wind as a result of Hurricane Helene. In addition, the Property sustained flood damage as a result of Hurricane Helene (note, flood damage is not covered under the Florida Peninsula policy). The wind-related roof and interior damage was therefore accounted for in the Hurricane Helene claim. Based on the investigation, Florida Peninsula issued its coverage determination letter for the Hurricane Milton claim on November 21, 2024 providing a detailed explanation advising as to the extent of the covered damage pursuant to the Policy, explaining that food loss was being accounted for in the estimate, explaining that damage from the Hurricane Helene claim could not be estimated for again on the Hurricane Milton claim, and providing the estimate for clarity purposes. As made clear, 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 requests that in order to cure the alleged violations, Florida Peninsula must: 1) admit full coverage for the Insured’s loss; 2) pay the public adjuster’s estimated amount of $749,271.88 immediately (which includes amounts attributable to a different claim and flood); 3) deem the property a total loss and issue the remaining coverage A limit for a total claim payment of $1,600,000.00 less any applicable deductible; and 4) pay statutory interest. Based on its thorough investigation, the information received at this time, and the terms and conditions of the Policy, Florida Peninsula properly determined that no amounts are due and owing under the Policy, and in particular, not the amounts claimed by the Insured. 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 20, 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