Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     797797
Filing Accepted:  12/20/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
SOLOMON   First Name   LINDA
Street Address * 7939 SANDY POINT DRIVE
City, State Zip * DELRAY BEACH, FL 33446
Email Address * LSFSOL@COMCAST.NET
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   SOLOMON   First Name   LINDA
Policy # * 6712483615 Claim #* 01000114278
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* FANTETTI First Name * KELLY Initial A
Street Address* 109 S. EDISON AVENUE
City, State Zip* TAMPA , FLORIDA 33606
Email Address * KFANTETTI@STOCKHAMLAWGROUP.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   FIRST PROTECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10897
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* JEFFREY LANSPERY
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Claim Delay
Unfair Trade Practice
* Statutory provision(s) which the insurer allegedly violated.
 
624.155(1)(b)(1) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests.
624.155(1)(b)(3) Except as to liability coverages, failing to promptly settle claims, when the obligation to settle a claim has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

All Risk Provisions of the Policy SECTION I – PERILS INSURED AGAINST A. Coverage A – Dwelling And Coverage B – Other Structures 1. We insure against risk of direct physical loss to property described in Coverages A and B. 10. Loss Payment provision We will adjust all losses with you. We will pay you unless some other person is named in the policy or is legally entitled to receive payment. Loss will be payable upon the earlier of the following: a. 20 days after we receive your proof of loss and reach written agreement with you; or b. 60 days after we receive your proof of loss and: (1)There is an entry of a final judgment; or (2) There is a filing of an appraisal award or a mediation settlement with us. 1. If payment is not denied, within 90 days after: 1. We receive notice of an initial, supplemental or reopened claim; 2. We agree to coverage; and 3. We determine the amount of benefits.
 
* 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. First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Insurance Company (“FRONTLINE”) has breached the public’s trust by its adjustment of Linda Solomon’s (“Insured”) claim of loss. FRONTLINE’s address is 500 International Parkway, Lake Mary, FL 32795. FRONTLINE has failed to create and implement adequate guidelines for the proper investigation and evaluation of claims, claims handling, and for training and supervision of employees resulting in statutory violations as set forth above. FRONTLINE has failed and/or refused to thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigate and evaluate the Insureds’ insurance claim for damages. FRONTLINE has failed to promptly settle the Insured’s insurance claim when the obligation to settle the insurance claim had become reasonably clear. To date, notwithstanding the Insured’s pleas otherwise, FRONTLINE has continued to refuse to acknowledge its obligation to conduct a proper investigation, and to tender the full amount of insurance monies due and owing its Insured under the policy. This claim involves the Insured’s property located in Delray Beach, FL which was damaged by a sudden and accidental water loss on July 6, 2024, caused by the failure of the washing machine. The Insured discovered the loss around 5:00 a.m. After discovering the loss, the Insured got towels to soak up the water and turned off the water line within five (5) minutes of discovering the problem, which stopped the water. The Insured hired a Public Adjuster that same day who reported the claim for her on July 9, 2024. In the five and a half months since the claim was reported, FRONTLINE failed to provide a coverage determination and/or issue any payment whatsoever, despite being provided all requested documents from the Insured and taking the Insured’s EUO on November 14, 2024. The Insured hired CNI Concepts to test for mold and water damage. CNI found evidence of moisture intrusion in drywall in the laundry, bathroom, hallway, and office closet, found evidence of mold growth in ten or more square feet of affected areas. CNI has prepared a mold remediation estimate in the amount of $12,893.74, and a water damage estimate of $56,645.05 (RCV), $55,910.81 (ACV), to return the house to its pre-loss condition. The Insured also paid $4,325.83 to Hi Caliber Restoration for water mitigation services. On or about August 8, 2024, the Insured submitted to FRONTLINE a Sworn Statement in Proof of Loss (“POL”) in the amount claimed of $66,304.55 after removing recoverable depreciation and the $2,500.00 deductible. The amount claimed in the POL did not include the water mitigation invoice, which should be covered. FRONTLINE rejected the POL for not being on its approved form, but no other form has yet been provided to Insured’s Counsel. Finally, on December 19, 2024, over a month since the EUO, FRONTLINE issued a coverage letter and provided FRONTLINE’s low-ball estimate of $1,446.86, which is below the Insured’s $2,500.00 deductible. In its letter, FRONTLINE admitted it saw water damage to the laundry room, the entry way to a bedroom, hallway, and vanity toe kick in the hall bath. It erroneously alleged, however, other damage it observed resulted from an historical leak. The concept of insurance is that the insurer will investigate and grant timely and prompt indemnity or security against a contingent loss. Florida Statute §624.02 defines “insurance” as a contract whereby one undertakes to indemnify another or pay or allow a specified amount or a determinable benefit upon determinable contingencies. Inherent in that definition is the fact that payment must be made timely and promptly so that the Insured may mitigate her damages and be put back into the position she was in prior to the loss as quickly as possible. FRONTLINE has breached this duty. The Insured was, and still is, forced to expend out of pocket monies to submit her insurance claim, e.g., retaining a public adjuster, an attorney, and other experts to force FRONTLINE to honor its obligations under the insurance policy and to pay all the insurance proceeds due and owing to her. FRONTLINE has refused and/or failed to tender all the insurance proceeds due and owing to the Insured. FRONTLINE’s refusal and/or failure to settle the insurance claim when under all circumstances it could have and should have done so had it acted fairly and honestly towards the Insured is wrongful conduct. Furthermore, the Insured contends that FRONTLINE’s adjusters and/or representatives financially benefit from such wrongful conduct. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, FRONTLINE must tender to the Insured the full amount necessary to repair the damaged property, plus interest This notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by Fla. Stat. §624.155.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
kferry@camboferry.com 02-18-2025 February 18, 2025 VIA E-MAIL & UPLOADED TO DFS Linda Solomon c/o Kelly A. Fantetti, Esq. Stockham Law Group 109 S. Edison Avenue Tampa, FL 33606 Kfantetti@StockhamLawGroup.com Re: Complainant/Insured: LINDA SOLOMON Date of Loss: MAY 15, 2024 Claim Number: 01000114278 Policy Number: 6712483615 DFS Filing Number: 797797 Dear Ms. Fantetti, My firm represents First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a as Frontline Insurance Company (“Frontline”) with respect to the above matter. This correspondence constitutes Frontline’s response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation (“CRN”) with filing number 797797 you filed on behalf of our Insured, Linda Solomon. The Notice is void because it is legally invalid. Beyond that, the allegations in the Notice have no merit. I. The Civil Remedy Notice is legally invalid. The filing of a valid Civil Remedy Notice is a condition precedent to an action brought pursuant to section 624.155, Florida Statutes. Talat Enter., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1283 (Fla. 2000). Because the statute is in derogation of the common law, it must be strictly construed. Id. “[A]ny statute in derogation of the common law requires strict compliance with its provisions by one seeking to avail himself of its benefits.” Florida Steel Corp. v. Adaptable Devs., Inc., 503 So. 2d 1232, 1234 (Fla. 1986). Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, requires a civil remedy notice to provide specific information to put the insurer on notice of the alleged violation. Additionally, a civil remedy notice must be “specific enough to provide insurers notice of the wrongdoing so the insurer can cure the same within sixty days.” Valenti v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 8:04CV1615T-30TGW, 2006 WL 1627276, at *2 (M.D. Fla. 2006). Here, the Notice is invalid because it does not contain all of the information required by section 624.155. Demase v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 7760 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022). Also, it is invalid because it lacks sufficient specificity to provide notice to Frontline of the alleged wrongdoing, as discussed below. First, the CRN fails to reference the specific policy language relevant to the alleged violation as required by Fla. Stat. §624.155(3)(b)4. Pursuant to Fla. Stat. §624.155(3)(b)4, the CRN must cite the specific policy language that is relevant to the alleged violations. Instead, the CRN blanketly references “All Risk Provision of the Policy” and the “Loss Payment Provision.” Citing to the entire policy does not in any way assist Frontline in curing any alleged violations. From the onset of this claim reported by the Public Adjuster, Frontline was handling this matter on a reservation of rights and issued its coverage determination based upon the information provided by the Insured, its investigation, pursuant to the policy’s terms, limitations, conditions, exclusions and endorsements. An insurance company is required to settle claims that should be settled, it is not required to settle claims that are legitimately contested. Therefore, the facts alleged are deficient of any information necessary for Frontline to address any of issues regarding the policy the Complainant alleges to have been violated, which is the underlying purpose of Fla. Stat. §624.155(3)(b)4. The CRN, therefore, is statutorily deficient because it does not comply with the requirements set forth in Fla. Stat. §624.155(3)(b)4. Demase v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 7760 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022). Second, the CRN does not provide any specific supporting facts and merely makes conclusory statements. The CRN includes a myriad of self-serving statements applicable to any insurance claim seeking additional payment without any support for the same. No specific facts identifying what, if anything, Frontline did or failed to do with regard to the claim were provided. Instead, the allegations are mere self-serving and conclusory statements without substance or relation to any alleged violation. The very demand to cure outlines that Frontline must tender the Insured the full amount necessary to repair the damaged property, plus interest. There is no estimate, no additional sworn proof of loss, nothing attached to this Notice that allows Frontline to determine what additional damages are being claimed. This undermines the purpose of the CRN requirement preventing Frontline from investigating and resolving any of the alleged violations. The failure to provide any specific supporting facts for the allegations renders the CRN invalid. Demase v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 7760 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022). Third, the Notice is invalid because it does not list a specific cure for the alleged violations. In Talat, the Florida Supreme Court said that to “cure” a Notice, an insurer must pay the amount owed pursuant to the express terms and conditions of the policy.” However, the Notice here states “the Carrier can cure these violations by payment, within 60 days of the date hereof, of all funds contractual owed to the Insured under the terms and conditions of the Policy.” No cure amount of any kind is provided, instead it states, “pay the full amount necessary to repair the damaged property.” Frontline is left to guess what would be required to “cure” the alleged violations. It is improper for a civil remedy notice to not contain an amount to cure, therefore the CRN is invalid. Talat, 753 So. 2d at 1282–83; see also Francois v. Illinois Nat. Ins. Co., 01-CV-8070, 2002 WL 33760405, at *4 (S.D. Fla. 2002) aff'd, 49 Fed. Appx. 290 (11th Cir. 2002). Additionally, the CRN does not list Frontline’s address. See Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021); Pin-Pon Corp., 500 F. Supp. 3d 1336 (S.D. Fla. 2020). Finally, the boilerplate CRN lacks sufficient specificity to provide notice of the alleged bad-faith conduct. The CRN lists four (4) different statutes which Frontline allegedly violated. However, the CRN fails to provide any relevant facts supporting the alleged violations or relating these alleged violations to the four (4) cited statutes. Because the Civil Remedy Notice fails to identify any specific statutes or any facts to support why the Insureds believe Frontline violated the statutes, Frontline is unable to properly respond and the Notice is invalid and should be rejected and returned. Because the CRN fails to comply with the information requirements promulgated by the Department of Financial Services, it is legally invalid. See Pin-Pon Corp. v. Landmark Ins. Co., 500 F. Supp. 3d 1336 (S.D. Fla. 2020); Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 4D19-2763 (September 23, 2020); Demase v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 7760 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022). Again, in serving this response, Frontline reserves all rights under Florida law to be served with a properly completed and statutorily compliant CRN. As the CRN fails to strictly comply with the requirements of section 624.155, Florida Statutes, it is legally insufficient and should be rejected. II. The Civil Remedy Notice Lacks Merit The Notice also lacks merit. The subject claim was reported on July 9, 2024 by Plaintiff’s Public Adjuster as a plumbing leak in the laundry room at the subject property located at 7939 Sandy Point, Delray Beach, FL 33446. On the same date of this Notice, Frontline responded by providing a copy of the policy, and requesting the following information: ? Any photos or videos you captured when you discovered the damages. ? Please Retain the Washing Machine Hose and allow us to inspect and photo it. ? A recorded statement from the person with the most knowledge of the loss. ? Allow us to inspect ALL damages property prior to its removal and or repair from residence premise. ? Any additional information you have gathered that would assist us in coverage, ? 3rd party licensed contractor estimate ? If Mitigation is on site, please provide direction to pay agreement, and any photos, estimates, or logs provided. ? Any paid invoice(s) or receipts for any temporary repairs, or repairs made to protect the property from additional damages. Thereafter, on August 2, 2024, Frontline began handling this matter under a reservation or rights. In this correspondence, Frontline continued to seek additional material information from the Insured including: • Cause of Loss Documentation: Retain and provide evidence of the cause of loss and provide documentation as to the repair of the source of loss. • Photos/Videos: Any photos and videos taken at the time of the loss and of the damage(s) being claimed. • Sworn Proof of Loss: Please provide a fully executed, State compliant Sworn Proof of Loss, and accompanying supporting documentation. • Emergency Services Documents: Please provide photos of meter readings, drylogs, estimate and any signed contracts for any drying , mitigation, mold testing, and mold protocols. • Rebuild Estimates/Invoices: Submit estimates or quotes, written or verbal from any contractors, or estimates you have obtained from any independent contractors or home repair stores (IE Home Depot, Lowes) for flooring, painting, baseboards, please include his full name, company name if he has one, and his contractor license number. • Inspection: A Reinspection By Independent Engineer. • Additional: Please provide any and all documentation for any home warranty, or other related service contract company. • Additional: Copies of paid receipts from all repairs you have made to date, include plumbing repairs or technician repairs. • Additional: A Recorded Statement of Named insured who can provide most detail information about the loss. • Additional: An Examination Under Oath, of all named insureds, and any other adults living in the home at the time of the loss if requested. • Additional: Signed Transcripts/ Errata Sheets from your Examination Under Oath, if requested. • Additional Documentation: Please provide Water Bills (All Pages) from January 2024 through June 2024, and also include July 2024 once received. • Additional Documents: Pre-Purchase documentation to include: Pre-Purchase Home Inspection, seller disclosures, purchase contract and all addendums, • Additional Documents: Please Provide all Condo Documents, Bylaws, Rules, and Regulations, and Master Policy. On August 6, 2024, the Complainant provided an improper Sworn Proof of Loss with no estimate and the Insured’s recorded statement was provided. The same was acknowledged by Frontline on August 12, 2024 and the deficiencies were outlined within the same correspondence. On August 28, 2024, Frontline sent out an additional reservation of rights letter requesting: • Cause of Loss Documentation: Retain and provide evidence of the cause of loss and provide documentation as to the repair of the source of loss. • Photos/Videos: Any photos and videos taken at the time of the loss and of the damage(s) being claimed. • Sworn Proof of Loss: Please provide a fully executed, State compliant Sworn Proof of Loss, and accompanying supporting documentation. The proof of loss received was not compliant with updated Florida Statute. • Emergency Services Documents: Please provide photos from drying/ mitigation company. • Rebuild Estimates/Invoices: Submit any and all estimates or quotes, written or verbal from any contractors, or estimates you have obtained from any independent contractors or home repair stores (IE Home Depot, Lowes) for flooring, painting, baseboards, please include his full name, company name if he has one, and his contractor license number. • Inspection: A Reinspection By Independent Engineer. • Additional: Please provide any and all documentation for any home warranty, or other related service contract company. • Additional: Copies of paid receipts from all repairs you have made to date, include plumbing repairs or technician repairs. • Additional: An Examination Under Oath, of all named insureds, and any other adults living in the home at the time of the loss if requested. • Additional: Signed Transcripts/ Errata Sheets from your Examination Under Oath, if requested. • Additional Documentation: Please provide Water Bills (All Pages) from January 2024 through June 2024, and also include July 2024 once received. • Additional Documents: Pre-Purchase documentation to include: Pre-Purchase Home Inspection, seller disclosures, purchase contract and all addendums, • Additional Documents: Please Provide all Condo Documents, Bylaws, Rules and Regulations, and Master Policy. Despite numerous requests for material information, the Complainant failed to respond in violation of their duties contained within their policy. Nonetheless, Frontline continued its investigation despite the obvious prejudice from the Complainant’s lack of forthcoming documentation. On or about August 20, 2024, Frontline engaged an engineer from U.S. Forensic to conduct an evaluation of the Insured premises. Thereafter, On October 10, 2024, Frontline was prepared to take the Examination Under Oath of the Complainant, but it was postponed due to Hurricane Milton being in the direct path of Opposing Counsel’s office. Three days before that, Opposing Counsel provided some, but not all, of the requested documentation that was outstanding in this claim. The EUO was re-scheduled for and conducted on November 14, 2024. The signed errata sheet was later provided on November 22, 2024. Notably, the Complainant failed to provide additional information that was always available to the Complainant when requested, such as the inspection report, plumbing invoice, and closing statement. This documentation showed pre-existing damage to the property and closing credits provided to the Complainant to make repairs to the property at sources of potential water intrusion. Thereafter, on or about December 19, 2024, based on the information from its engineer’s assessment, inspection, a review of the documentation produced, and the Complainant’s testimony, Frontline rendered a coverage determination that was under deductible for the related damages. Notably, it advised that the estimate utilized in the Complainant’s sworn proof of loss of $66,304.55 included damages to not just the laundry room and hallway, but the bathroom, bedroom 2, office closet, office, entry way, dining, family, and kitchen. This included and misrepresented over $15k of damage to areas that the Complainant specifically advised were not damaged because of this loss. Moreover, based on the inspection report produced, the guest bedroom laminate flooring and baseboards were already separating and damaged prior to this alleged loss occurring. No revised were received prior to this Notice. After the issuance of this coverage determination, Frontline was met with this Notice improperly alleging bad faith conduct on its behalf. On or about February 6, 2025, the Complainant provided a revised estimate removing the misrepresented damage in unrelated rooms and thereafter, on February 14, 2025, provided an additional estimate of damage from a GC Building Group. Pursuant to Fla. Stat. 627.70131 and the Complainant’s policy, Frontline would be afforded sixty (60) days to evaluate this supplemental documentation and determine if additional payment is due. Therefore, this CRN is premature and invalid. At the outset, Plaintiff’s counsel has placed settlement ahead of a proper investigation of the loss and compliance with both Florida Statutes and the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. An insurance company is required to settle claims that should be settled, it is not required to settle claims that are legitimately contested. Florida law continually affirms the principle that an insurer has the right to investigate claims presented for payment. An insurance company is expressly afforded an opportunity to evaluate its rights and liabilities. Frontline stands behind its coverage determination but will continue to work with the Insured to ensure an amicable resolution. As outlined above, Frontline has abided by the policy and stands by its decision on this claim. As such, Frontline has complied with all policy provisions and applicable Florida law regarding the adjudication of this matter. Coverage was properly afforded for the Insured’s loss and the covered damages were determined based upon a thorough investigation and adjustment pursuant to the terms, conditions, exclusions, limits, recoverable depreciation, and deductible of the subject policy. Based on the foregoing, Frontline agrees that it will continue evaluating this claim and issue any payments for which coverage is confirmed but denies any and all allegations of bad faith in connection with the claim submitted by the Insured and considers this matter cured based upon the allegations within this CRN. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, CAMBO FERRY, PLLC Joshua D. Strudwick, Esq. Joshua D. Strudwick, Esq. CC: LSFSOL@COMCAST.NET
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