Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     798252
Filing Accepted:  12/26/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
GOODBYE MOLD LLC   First Name  
Street Address * 8300 NW 53RD ST SUITE 350
City, State Zip * DORAL, FL 33166
Email Address * INFO@GOODBYE-MOLD.COM
Complainant Type: * Third Party
Insured
Last/Business Name*   AIDA & CHRISTIAND MENDEZ MORALES - SANCHEZ   First Name  
Policy # * 04506373-2 Claim #* 227264
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* GONZALEZ ESQ. First Name * ROBERT F. Initial
Street Address* 8950 SW 74TH CT., STE 2267
City, State Zip* MIAMI , FLORIDA 33152
Email Address * INTAKE@FLINSLAW.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
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)(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)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Section 1 - Perlis Insured Against Section 1 - Property Coverages Loss Settlement Provision
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Page 1 of 1On August 21, 2022, Aida & Christiand Mendez Morales - Sanchez suffered a loss due tocovered perils contemplated under the Policy; and timely reported the damage to Defendant.Aida & Christiand Mendez Morales - Sanchez contracted Goodbye Mold LLC in order toperform services to the Insureddirectly relating to the loss. In exchange for Goodbye Mold LLC'sservices Aida & Christiand Mendez Morales - Sanchez executed an assignment of benefits. Onor about September 14, 2022, Goodbye Mold LLC provided Florida Peninsula InsuranceCompany with notice of the Assignment of Benefits. Within the statutory period, Goodbye MoldLLC provide Florida Peninsula Insurance Company with a copy of its invoice, assignmentagreement, demand for payment of insurance benefits and supporting documentation. During theinvestigation of the claim, Florida Peninsula Insurance Company sent an unqualified person tomake determinations of causation of damage in violations of 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d). Aftercompleting its deficient investigation Florida Peninsula Insurance Company should haveprovided coverage for the loss. Florida Peninsula Insurance Company has unduly delayed fullpayment and coverage over the claim in violation of the insurance contract and has done so in amanner which violates multiple Florida Statutes. Furthermore, Florida Peninsula InsuranceCompany failed to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of thebasis in the insurance policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for denial of a claim or forthe offer of a compromise settlement.The failure to issue payment when there was no applicable exclusion for the type of service orclaim in relation to the covered claim is a violation of 624.155(1)(b)(1) and 624.155(1)(b)(3).Florida Peninsula Insurance Company has been provided sufficient evidence to support coveragefor the subject claim and services. Despite making numerous payments in the past for these typesof services which were performed in relation to valid insurance claims, Florida PeninsulaInsurance Company has subsequently made it a business practice to deny these servicesirrespective of the facts for each claim in direct violation of 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) and626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b).Florida Peninsula Insurance Company has repeatedly and continuously acted in bad faith in thismatter and others like it. Despite the fact that these services are directly related to covered lossesand not excluded under the policy of insurance, Florida Peninsula Insurance Company refuses topay insurance benefits for same. In order to cure Florida Peninsula Insurance Company’scontinuous acts of bad faith, Florida Peninsula Insurance Company must issue payment for theinvoiced amount of $ 3,000.00 and which has a current balance of $ 3,000.00; as well as,statutory interest. In addition, Florida Peninsula Insurance Company must cease its unfair tradepractice of citing to irrelevant policy provisions in order to misrepresent the coverages affordedunder its policies of insurance.PDC22-113799
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
shannon@zinoberdiana.com 02-18-2025 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 states “UNKNOWN.” This is clearly nonspecific, inaccurate, and fails to provide Florida Peninsula with a proper ability to identify the proper individuals. Moreover, the CRN fails to accurately provide the Insureds names (Aida Morales-Sanchez and Christian Mendez), instead identifying them as Aida & Christiand Mendez Morales – Sanchez. Additionally, the CRN fails to provide the insured property address. 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, 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 its 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 opening coverage and issuing the full EMS limit under the 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 Insureds and with due regard for the interests of the Insureds, as it does on every claim. As coverage was opened, its unclear as to why this violation is even included except as to illustrate why the CRN is not intended to be specific but a boilerplate CRN. 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 August 29, 2022 and Florida Peninsula issued its coverage determination and payment on September 17, 2022 and the EMS coverage determination and payment for the EMS policy limit on September 16, 2022. Complainant, on the other hand, has filed a CRN based on an alleged assignment of benefits contract that was purportedly entered into two years prior. 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 and payments issued including payment for the EMS policy limit, 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 Insureds and with due regard for the interests of the Insureds, 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 and payments issued including payment for the EMS policy limit, 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 Insureds and with due regard for the interests of the Insureds, 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, issued a detailed explanation to the Insureds regarding its coverage determination, issued payment to the Insureds, and issued the full EMS policy limit to the entity who provided Florida Peninsula with its service agreement and documentation. 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 Insureds and with due regard for the interests of the Insureds, 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 Insureds and/or their 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, issued a detailed explanation to the Insureds regarding its coverage determination, issued payment to the Insureds, and issued the full EMS policy limit to the entity who provided Florida Peninsula with its service agreement and documentation. 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 Insureds and with due regard for the interests of the Insureds, 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 Insureds and/or their 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)(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, issued a detailed explanation to the Insureds regarding its coverage determination, issued payment to the Insureds, and issued the full EMS policy limit to the entity who provided Florida Peninsula with its service agreement and documentation. 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 Insureds and with due regard for the interests of the Insureds, 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, issued an honest and detailed explanation to the Insureds regarding its coverage determination, issued payment to the Insureds, and issued the full EMS policy limit to the entity who provided Florida Peninsula with its service agreement and documentation. 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 Insureds and with due regard for the interests of the Insureds, 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 Insureds and/or their representatives. Florida Peninsula has not made misrepresentations to the Insureds and/or their 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)(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, issued a detailed explanation to the Insureds regarding its coverage determination, issued payment to the Insureds, and issued the full EMS policy limit to the entity who provided Florida Peninsula with its service agreement and documentation. Accordingly, as this section is inapplicable to non-denied claims, it is further unclear as to why this section is included except as to be illustrative of the lack of specificity and therefore invalidity of the CRN. 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 Insureds and with due regard for the interests of the Insureds, 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. 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 refers to the entirety of “Section 1 – Perils Insured Against Section 1 – Property Coverages Loss Settlement Provision” which is clearly improper, nonspecific, over generalized, and noncompliant with the CRN requirements. 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, it is precluded from doing so as it 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 Insureds and the Insureds’ representatives about the claim, issued proper payments pursuant to the Policy, and provided the Insureds reasonable explanations for its actions. The subject claim involves alleged water damage in a guestroom bathroom with a reported date of loss of August 21, 2022 to the property located at 1018 E. Normandy Blvd, Deltona, FL 32725-6459 (the “Property”) first reported to Florida Peninsula on August 29, 2022. On September 6, 2022, Florida Peninsula received a correspondence from a restoration company called Best One Restoration, LLC who provided Florida Peninsula with its service agreement with the Insureds for the related emergency services, photographs of the Property, and their estimate. 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 and issued payments consistent therewith. Based on the investigation, Florida Peninsula issued its EMS claim determination on September 16, 2022 advising that it was issuing the EMS policy limit amount of $3,000.00 to Best One Restorations, LLC (i.e., the entity that provided Florida Peninsula its documentation) and on September 17, 2022 issued its coverage determination advising that it was also issuing payment of $2,327.12 to the Insureds which was the estimated repairs amount less the deductible. In addition, in the coverage determination letter, Florida Peninsula provided a detailed explanation advising as to the extent of the covered damage pursuant to the Policy, providing the applicable policy language, and providing the estimate for clarity purposes. Now, a new entity, Goodbye Mold, LLC by way of the CRN claims that it entered into an assignment of benefits with the Insureds over two years prior and is making claim for the EMS limit which has already been paid out by Florida Peninsula. Complainant Goodbye Mold, LLC’s claims are clearly unfounded. 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 and issued the proper payments pursuant to the Policy. Moreover, contrary to the Complainant’s claims, Florida Peninsula has and continues to promptly respond to all communications, communicate honestly with the Insureds and their 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: issue payment for Complainant’s invoiced amount of $3,000.00 in addition to statutory interest, and “cease its unfair trade practice of citing to irrelevant policy provisions in order to misrepresent the coverages afforded under its policies of insurance”. First and foremost, Florida Peninsula does not and has not cited to irrelevant policy provisions in order to misrepresent the coverages afforded under its policies of insurance and will continue to refrain from doing so. Based on its thorough investigation, the information received at this time, and the terms and conditions of the Policy, Florida Peninsula already properly issued the EMS limit in the amount of $3,000.00 prior to this CRN being file, and therefore no amounts are owed. Thus, this purported cure is illusory. 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 26, 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