Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     798984
Filing Accepted:  1/2/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
WATSON   First Name   ROBERT
Street Address * 7220 CAPTAIN KIDD REEF
City, State Zip * PENSACOLA, FL 32507
Email Address * N/A
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   WATSON   First Name   ROBERT
Policy # * 2687739226 Claim #* 01000039870
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* ELIMELECH First Name * REBECCA Initial R
Street Address* 1500 N.E. 162ND ST.
City, State Zip* MIAMI , FLORIDA 33162
Email Address * RELIMELECH@ILGPA.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):* N/A
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Non-renewal
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)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
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)(4) Failing to pay undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed under first-party property insurance policies within 60 days after an insurer receives notice of a residential property insurance claim, determines the amounts of partial or full benefits, and agrees to coverage, unless payment of the undisputed benefits is prevented by factors beyond the control of the insurer as defined in s. 627.70131(5).
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

COVERAGES COVERAGE A – Dwelling We cover: 1. The dwelling on the Described Location shown in the Declarations, used principally for dwelling purposes, including structures attached to the dwelling; 2. Materials and supplies located on or next to the Described Location used to construct, alter or repair the dwelling or other structures on the Described Location. COVERAGE B – Other Structures We cover other structures on the Described Location, set apart from the dwelling by clear space. This includes structures connected to the dwelling by only a fence, utility line, or similar connection. PERILS INSURED AGAINST COVERAGE A – DWELLING and COVERAGE B – OTHER STRUCTURES We insure against risk of direct loss to property described in Coverages A and B only if that loss is a physical loss to property.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Robert Watson (hereinafter the “Insured”), paid for a policy of insurance with First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Insurance (hereinafter, “Insurer”) bearing policy number 2687739226 (the “Policy”). The Policy provides coverage for damage to the Insured’s property located at 7220 Captain Kidd Reef, Pensacola, Florida 32507 (the “Property”), including the significant damage that occurred as a result of Hurricane Sally on or about September 16, 2020 (the “loss”). Specifically, the Insured’s Property sustained substantial damage to the roof, sliding glass door, boat hoist, and the interior of the home, including the tile floor. Additionally, the Insured incurred additional living expenses. The Insured promptly reported their claim to the Insurer. On September 23, 2021, the Insurer sent a letter to the Insured advising that the damages to the Property totaled $10,977.46. On January 31, 2024, the Insurer issued a check to the Insured in the amount of $88,361.90. The Insured contacted Mendy Levy from Redemption Adjusters LLC (hereafter Redemption Adjusters), who conducted a thorough inspection of the property and compiled an estimate of damages. Redemption Adjusters, on behalf of the Insured, forwarded said estimate which fully detailed the Insured’s damages and total $190,187.86. However, the Insurer refuses to resolve the Insured’s claim and pay for all damages to the Property. The Insurer’s conduct is in bad faith and violates Florida’s statutes concerning the adjustment of insurance claims. First, Florida Statute § 624.155(1)(B)(1) requires good faith in the settlement of claims. The Insurer is in violation of this Statute for failing to provide a reasonable repair estimate. The Insured incurred loss of rent income and was unable to rent out the property due to the damages. Moreover, the Insured’s tenant broke the lease because of the damages from the storm. The Insured could not fully repair the property because the Insurer did not provide enough funds to cover all the damages. What is more, the Insurer violated Florida Statute § 624.155(1)(b)(3) by failing to promptly settle the claim, when the obligation to settle the claim became reasonably clear. Again, the Insurer failed to make a good faith offer to settle this claim and failed to account for the full scope of the damages. They failed to respond to the estimate provided by Redemption Adjusters, on the Insured’s behalf, in a timely manner. They are obligated to provide coverage for all damages to the Insured’s Property, and not attempt to resolve this claim with lowball offers. Additionally, the Insurer’s conduct violates Florida Statute § 626.9541, which prohibits unfair settlement practices. More specifically, the Insurer has violated Florida Statute § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) by failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. Further, the Insurer has violated Florida Statute § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) by failing to acknowledge and act promptly with the Insured and its counsel. The Insurer owes the Insured payment for loss of rental income beginning from the date of loss on September 16, 2020, until the appraisal, which occurred on December 16, 2023. Also, the Insurer failed to pay the recoverable depreciation owed to the Insured per the appraisal award. Moreover, the Insurer informed the Insured that they are unable to renew his insurance policy without providing any explanation. As mentioned above, the Insurer failed to account for the full scope of the damages and has additionally failed to respond to the estimate provided by Redemption Adjusters, on behalf of the Insured, in a timely manner, delaying the resolution of this claim. Had the Insurer done so, it would have immediately settled this claim on a fair and reasonable basis and provided full coverage to its Insured. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, the Insurer must: (1) create and implement adequate guidelines for the proper investigation and evaluation of claims and for the training and supervision of employees, which will avoid future statutory violations and avoid this from occurring in the future; (2) immediately tender all insurance proceeds due and owing its Insured under the Policy in the amount of $190,187.86 (less the deductible and any prior payments), plus all statutory interest; (3) act fairly and honestly towards its Insured and with due regard for his interests in attempting to settle their Insured’s claim; (4) hold the claim open in the event that its errors and delay does or may cause the Insured to suffer either further loss and/or damage; and, (5) stipulate to the Insured’s entitlement to attorney’s fees and court costs pursuant to Florida Statutes §§ 627.428 and 626.9373. Acknowledgment This notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by Florida Statutes section 624.155, should First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Insurance fail to cure the violations set forth in this Civil Remedy Notice within the given cure period.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
amaddox@penningtonlaw.com 03-03-2025 March 3, 2025 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING THROUGH WWW.FLDFS.COM – CIVIL REMEDY SYSTEM Rebecca R. Elimelech 1500 N.E. 162nd Street Miami, Florida 33162 relimelech@ilgpa.com Civil Remedy Notice Response DFS Filing No.: 798984 Insured: Robert Watson Complainant: Robert Watson Policy Number: 2687739226 Claim Number: 01000039870 Date CRN Filed: January 2, 2025 Dear Counsel: Undersigned counsel and the law firm of Pennington, P.A. represent FIRST PROTECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY (“FRONTLINE”) with regard to the above-referenced claim. This shall serve as FRONTLINE’s response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (“CRN”), filed by or on behalf of Complainant ROBERT WATSON (hereinafter “Complainant”), with the Florida Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) on January 2, 2025 (DFS Filing No. 798984). COMPLAINANT IS NOT IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH HIS DUTIES AFTER LOSS Complainant’s CRN is improper as he has failed to fully comply with his duties after loss prior to filing the subject CRN. The applicable policy of insurance states in the endorsement Special Provisions – Florida (FIM 00 22 12 16), Conditions, 11. Suit Against Us, that “[n]o action can be brought against us unless the policy provisions have been complied with[.]” Complainant is not in full compliance with the policy provisions, thus any action—including the filing of a civil remedy notice—is barred. Section 624.155, Florida Statutes cannot be reasonably interpreted in such a way that an insured could avoid complying with their duties after loss, thereby depriving an insurer of information necessary for its continued evaluation of a claim, while also imposing potential sanctions on the insurer. Since completion of appraisal, Complainant has failed, on multiple occasions, to provide documentation to support his claims for loss of fair rental value and recoverable depreciation. FRONTLINE requested, on multiple occasions, that Complainant provide certain documentation to support his loss of fair rental value claim—including why the loss of rental income was related to wind damage (a covered peril) rather than flood damage (a non-covered peril). Such documentation was also particularly important to FRONTLINE’s adjustment of the claim in light of Complainant previously providing a sworn proof of loss stating he had not lost any rental income from the insured property. Complainant also failed to provide an updated sworn proof of loss to support his claim of lost rental income. Complainant further failed to provide any documentation of completed repairs or to demonstrate that the amount actually spent on repairs exceeded the actual cash value of the appraisal award, thereby supporting payment of recoverable depreciation. THE CRN FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THE SPECIFICITY REQUIREMENTS OF § 624.155, FLORIDA STATUTES As a preliminary matter, Complainant has made blatant misrepresentations as to certain information, including the omission of relevant facts, in an attempt to bolster his argument. These representations fail to rise to the good faith required of an insured and are further grounds for a finding that the CRN is invalid. Complainant fails to cite any specific policy language relevant to the violation. He instead references vague section headings, some of which FRONTLINE did not know were in dispute. Complainant vaguely references Coverage A—Dwelling and Coverage B—Other Structures in the relevant policy language section of this CRN. In the facts and circumstances section of the CRN, he asserts he is owed “loss of rent income,” which falls under Coverage D of the subject policy. Complainant also claims he is owed recoverable depreciation per the appraisal award. He does not specify the amount of recoverable deprecation, nor does he identify under which coverage he claims recoverable depreciation is owed. He also conveniently excludes the fact that he has not submitted any proof to FRONLINE that repairs have been completed in excess of the actual cash value amount he was already paid. Under the policy, recoverable depreciation is not owed until those costs are incurred. These inconsistencies make it challenging for FRONTLINE to determine which coverages are being disputed and the damages that are being claimed. Specific policy language is clearly necessary in order to allow FRONTLINE the opportunity to further investigate the allegations of misconduct and make an informed decision as to how to proceed. Complainant’s failure to cite to specific policy language relevant to the violation is contrary to the specificity requirements of § 624.155, Fla. Stat. See also Julien v. United Property & Casualty Insurance Company, 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (broad references to policy language do not satisfy the specificity requirements of the civil remedy notice statute; such requirements are not mere technicalities). For this reason alone, the CRN is impermissibly vague and cannot serve as a prerequisite for pursuing a bad faith claim. The CRN is also impermissibly vague when describing the facts and circumstances that purportedly give rise to the claimed violations. Many facts listed in the CRN appear to be boilerplate, copy-and-pasted allegations that could be asserted in any other CRN filed by Complainant’s counsel. For example, the CRN states, “the Insurer failed to make a good faith offer to settle this claim and failed to account for the full scope of damages;” yet Complainant never describes evidentiary facts that supposedly amount to bad faith, nor does he provide any facts that support this allegation. Again, these allegations fall far short of the specificity requirements of § 624.155, Fla. Stat. and reiterated by Julien v. United Property & Casualty Insurance Company, 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). The defects cited above are not mere technicalities. Section 624.155(3)(b), Florida Statutes requires that CRNs be specific: (b) The notice shall be on a form provided by the department and shall state with specificity the following information, and such other information as the department may require: 1. The statutory provision, including the specific language of the statute, which the authorized insurer allegedly violated. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation. 3. The name of any individual involved in the violation. 4. Reference to specific policy language that is relevant to the violation, if any. If the person bringing the civil action is a third party claimant, she or he shall not be required to reference the specific policy language if the authorized insurer has not provided a copy of the policy to the third party claimant pursuant to written request. 5. A statement that the notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section. (emphasis added). As Florida’s civil remedy notice procedure is in derogation of common law, § 624.155 “must be strictly construed.” Talat Enters., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1283 (Fla. 2000) see also Bay v. United Services Automobile Association, 305 So. 3d 294 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020). The CRN at issue simply does not meet these specificity requirements and is invalid. COMPLAINANT’S REASONS FOR NOTICE ARE UNSUPPORTED BY FACTS The CRN also fails to provide specific facts to support each of the alleged statutory violations. As mentioned above, Complainant has intentionally excluded relevant information that weakens his argument. FRONTLINE fully complied with Florida law and regulations in the adjusting of this claim. The CRN contains a list of boilerplate allegations with no legitimate factual support. Further, Complainant has manipulated and omitted the “facts” he did include to bolster his argument. FRONTLINE specifically addresses the statutory violations in Complainant’s CRN as follows: 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. Complainant is relying on the Redemption Adjusters estimate of damages that was prepared on or about July 28, 2022. This estimate includes damages to the dwelling, other structures, and contents. He asserts that FRONTLINE issued one payment to Complainant in the amount of $88,361.90 on December 29, 2023. He neglects to mention that FRONTLINE made four (4) prior payments to him over the course of its investigation. He also omits the fact that he was paid an additional $2,650.00 under Coverage B – Other Structures on December 29, 2023. Complainant’s public adjuster later informed FRONTLINE that the checks had been sent to an outdated address, and FRONTLINE reissued the checks on January 31, 2024. In total, FRONTLINE has paid Complainant $116,909.61 under Coverage A, and $2,650.00 under Coverage B (a combined total of $119,559.61). Complainant ignores the fact that the full amount of his Coverage A and B damages were determined at appraisal. An appraisal award was entered on or about December 16, 2023. FRONTLINE promptly issued payment for the remaining balance of the actual cash value award on December 29, 2023. Now Complainant attempts to rely on an estimate well in excess of the appraisal award. Complainant and his representatives have failed to comply with their duties to act in good faith as imposed by § 624.155(5)(b)1. For these additional reasons, the CRN is not enforceable. See Julien v. United Property & Casualty Insurance Company, 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (broad references to policy language do not satisfy the specificity requirements of the civil remedy notice statute; such requirements are not mere technicalities). With regard to Complainant’s claim for loss of rental income, as previously noted, he has failed to produce any documentation supporting the amount of lost rental income. This is a necessary element of such a claim and cannot be based on an estimate or speculative evidence that rental income might be lost. Such a claim must be supported by evidence and facts, which Complainant has repeatedly failed to provide. FRONTLINE cannot promptly settle a claim when an insured fails to cooperate, and it has no duty to settle a claim when there is an absence of factual and documentary support for the claim. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) – Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. Complainant does not identify any genuine way that FRONTLINE’s standards were insufficient and resulted in bad faith conduct. Neither a denial of a claim nor a lack of payment following an insured’s non-compliance with their duties after loss, in and of themselves, demonstrate a lack of proper standards for claims investigation. Any alleged deficiency in FRONTLINE’s claim investigation stems not from its standards and practices but rather from Complainant’s repeated failures to comply with his duties after loss to provide documentation and information to FRONTLINE. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) – Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. The only communication that Complainant identifies relevant to this allegation is an estimate sent by Redemption Adjusters, i.e. “They failed to respond to the estimate provided by Redemption Adjusters, on the Insured’s behalf, in a timely manner.” This allegation is demonstrably false and made in bad faith. Redemption Adjusters’ estimate was submitted May 16, 2022 along with Complainant’s sworn proof of loss. FRONTLINE sent a letter acknowledging receipt on May 17, 2022. The public adjuster also called FRONTLINE the date it was uploaded and spoke directly with the desk adjuster, who acknowledged the receipt of the estimate. As demonstrated, this allegation is entirely without merit. 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. FRONTLINE sent multiple letters to Complainant via his public adjuster both prior to and after appraisal to request documentation regarding completed repairs. Most significantly, FRONTLINE sent a letter along with the payment of the appraisal award explaining the amount of recoverable depreciation available, documentation needed in order for such benefits to be released, examples of documents that could be submitted, and how to submit the documentation. Similarly, the documentation regarding the loss of rental income scarcely needs explanation, as such a claim is incumbent on documentation of rent previously received. Despite these requests and explanations, Complainant failed to provide the documentation yet now seeks to blame FRONTLINE for his deficiencies. On March 11, 2024, Complainant’s public adjuster demanded payment for loss of rental income. FRONTLINE previously denied this portion of the claim in January of 2021, as it was determined the property was uninhabitable due to flood damage, which were not covered under the policy. Despite extensive explanations to both Complainant and his public adjuster, a resolution could not be reached. 626.9541(1)(i)(4) – Failing to pay the undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed under first-party property insurance policies within 60 days after an insurer receives notice of a residential property insurance claim, determines the amounts of partial or full benefits, and agrees to coverage, unless payment of the undisputed benefits is prevented by factors beyond the control of the insurer as defined in s. 627.70131(5). This asserted violation completely lacks merit. FRONTLINE issued payment of the undisputed amount awarded at appraisal just thirteen (13) days after receipt of the award determination. Complainant is now attempting to assert entitlement to damages in excess of that award despite Complainant demanding appraisal, participating in the appraisal process, and accepting FRONTLINE’s payment of the appraisal award. A dispute remains whether the only benefits that remain—loss of rental income and recoverable depreciation—are due and owed at this time. Thus, there are no undisputed amounts to pay. COMPLAINANT’S CRN VIOLATES HIS DUTY TO ACT IN GOOD FAITH Pursuant to Section 624.155(5)(b)1., Fla. Stat., “[t]he insured, claimant, and representative of the insured or claimant have a duty to act in good faith in furnishing information regarding the claim, in making demands of the insurer, in setting deadlines, and in attempting to settle the claim.” Complainant and his representatives have failed to comply with this duty of good faith to furnish information regarding the claim by filing a CRN with insufficient facts and misleading allegations, as discussed in extensive detail in previous sections. Prior to the filing of this CRN, Complainant filed a lawsuit for breach of contract for the same claim. The lawsuit was dismissed for Complainant's failure to comply with the presuit notice requirements and for lack of specificity in his Complaint. Complainant filed a second Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation on January 5, 2025 (3 days after this CRN was filed). The Notice specifically identifies the disputed damages as loss of fair rental income and failure to pay the recoverable depreciation determined at appraisal. The estimate Complainant is relying on in this CRN does not include specific amounts for either fair rental value or the specific amount of recoverable depreciation awarded at appraisal. Complainant demands over $190,000.00 in damages in this CRN based on an estimate that was completed prior to appraisal. This estimate was reviewed and considered by the umpire when making his award. The amount of benefits owed was determined at appraisal and has already been liquidated. Instead of relying on the appraisal award, Complainant relies on an outdated estimate that has already been considered at appraisal. The amount awarded at appraisal was approximately $60,000.00 less than this estimate. Complainant is improperly attempting to relitigate issues already resolved by appraisal in a bad faith effort to obtain more insurance benefits than is owed. It is evident Complainant’s CRN is nothing more than an effort to “check the box” of filing a CRN before pursuing a bad faith lawsuit; Complainant has no intention of resolving this issue pre-suit. Complainant has not made a good faith effort to resolve this claim or otherwise comply with his co-equal duty to act in good faith. He has made inflated demands throughout the claims handling process, is relying on an outdated estimate for his cure demand, and claims damages under coverages that FRONTLINE was not aware were being disputed. He also significantly delayed providing documents and information necessary for FRONTLINE to fully address the full scope of his damages. Had Complainant genuinely desired to resolve this claim, he would have provided information necessary to address his disputes, rather than merely submitting an exorbitant estimate and using the CRN process as a cudgel to try to extract a settlement. As a result, any future bad faith lawsuit must be dismissed. THE CURE DEMAND IS IMPROPER Complainant demands that FRONTLINE “immediately tender all insurance proceeds due and owing [to] its Insured under the policy in the amount of $190,187.86” less the deductible and prior payments. He provides no specificity regarding the amount that is “due and ow[ed],” as he made no reference to any policy language under which he believes coverage and benefits would be owed. He also relies on an outdated and grossly inflated estimate, rather than the previously decided appraisal award. Complainant further demands payment of “all statutory interest,” but he fails to identify the amount. FRONTLINE is left only to guess how this amount will be calculated. If FRONTLINE elected to cure this CRN, it would be agreeing to payments well in excess of the appraisal award for damages that have been evaluated and paid for, and an unidentified amount of statutory interest. Complainant further demands FRONTLINE “create and implement adequate guidelines for the proper investigation and evaluation of claims and for the training and supervision of employees,” and “act fairly and honestly towards its Insured.” This is problematic for multiple reasons. First, FRONTLINE has already implemented more than adequate guidelines for handling all claims, including training and supervision of its employees, and consistently acts fairly and honestly towards all of its insureds. Further, Complainant provides no specificity regarding what he believes would constitute “adequate” guidelines. This is yet another element of the cure demand that is so vague as to render the civil remedy notice defective as it fails to give reasonable notice to FRONTLINE as to how it could cure the alleged violations. Finally, the intangibility of these cure elements raises significant questions regarding enforcement as to who would ensure this cure demand was met and whether FRONTLINE would be required to open its business practices to the scrutiny of Complainant’s counsel in order to cure the CRN. Additionally, Complainant demands FRONTLINE “hold the claim open.” The unappraised portions of the claim remain open, pending Complainants’ compliance with his duties after loss and provision of necessary documentation and information for FRONTLINE to complete its adjustment of the claim. . Finally, Complainant demands FRONTLINE “stipulate to the Insured’s entitlement to attorney’s fees and court costs.” Complainant is improperly demanding payment of an extracontractual benefit—i.e., attorneys’ fees and costs—that is not owed prior to the maturity of his bad faith claim. Talat Enters., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1282 (Fla. 2000) (“There is no reason why insureds would not demand also the advance payment of punitive damages and attorney’s fees. Section 624.155(2)(d) would have no effect or purpose under such an expansive and illogical reading of Fla. Stat. Ann. § 624.155(2)(d).”). Even if attorneys’ fees could be demanded, no amount of attorneys’ fees or costs is specified in the CRN. This is yet another vague element of the cure demand that renders the civil remedy notice defective. CONCLUSION AND RESERVATION OF RIGHTS FRONTLINE respectfully and categorically denies without limitation all of Complainant’s allegations within the CRN, including but not limited to the alleged violations of the cited provisions of Florida law, regardless of whether or not the specific allegation was cited above. Frontline further denies any and all stated, implied, and/or unspecified allegations, including but not limited to denying any and all allegations of alleged improper claim handling, inadequate investigation, improper delay or denial, failing to adequately and promptly communicate, failing to provide reasonable explanations, failing to affirm or deny coverage, making misrepresentations, general business practices, unfair or deceptive trade practices, and/or unsatisfactory settlement offers or practices, and the like, whether or not specifically alleged by Complainant’s CRN. Frontline has not violated any applicable provision of Florida law in the handling of this claim. Accordingly, FRONTLINE objects to and denies the allegations of the CRN. The objections and denials herein are not necessarily exhaustive, and this response shall not prevent Frontline from asserting any other appropriate objections, denials, and/or defenses related to this claim and/or CRN. Moreover, due to the objections and defects discussed herein, the Department should strike and/or reject the CRN as invalid. As a final matter, it should be emphasized that any policy issued by FRONTLINE is governed by the policy’s terms, conditions, and exclusions together with any endorsements. This CRN response does not waive any such provisions of the policy. Furthermore, any action taken by or on behalf of FRONTLINE, any related insurance company, or its authorized representative(s), whether in the past or future, to investigate the alleged loss, to adjust any claim or request for payment, or in any way related to or arising out of the subject claim or loss, shall not waive any of the terms, conditions, or any other provisions of the policy. Sincerely, /s/ Annabelle L. Maddox Brian E. Chojnowski Annabelle L. Maddox PENNINGTON, P.A. Copy furnished to: Florida Department of Financial Services FIRST PROTECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a FRONTLINE IN
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