Civil Remedy Filing

Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations

Filing Number: 799796

Filing Accepted: 1/7/2025

Print Filing

Complainant

Last/Business Name *

LITTLEFORD

First Name

JAMES AND AMY

Street Address *

745 FLAMINGO DR.,

City, State Zip *

APOLLO BEACH, FL 33572-24

Email Address *

WITHHELD

Complainant Type: *

Insured

Last/Business Name*		LITTLEFORD		First Name		JAMES AND AMY
Policy # *		0412241620		Claim #*		01000119556

Attorney

Attorney is Applicable

Last Name*	WALLACE First Name * BLAKE Initial
Street Address*		8635 W. HILLSBOROUGH AVE., STE. 401
City, State Zip*		TAMPA , FLORIDA 33615
Email Address *		BLAKE@KLINGLAW.COM

Violation

Insurer Type *		Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer

Insurer Name
Insurer Name*		FIRST PROTECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY
Insurer Name*
Street Address*
City, State Zip*		,
NAIC Company Code 10897

Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* JEANA WILLIAMS & STAN FRANKLIN
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)(c)		Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
	626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d)		Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information.
	626.9541(1)(i)(3)(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.

SECTION I – PROPERTY COVERAGES A. Coverage A – Dwelling 1. We cover: a. The dwelling on the "residence premises" shown in the Declarations, including structures attached to the dwelling; and b. Materials and supplies located on or next to the "residence premises" used to construct, alter or repair the dwelling or other structures on the "residence premises". 2. We do not cover land, including land on which the dwelling is located. B. Coverage B – Other Structures 1. We cover other structures on the "residence premises" set apart from the dwelling by clear space. This includes structures connected to the dwelling by only a fence, utility line, or similar connection. 2. We do not cover: a. Land, including land on which the other structures are located; b. Other structures rented or held for rental to any person not a tenant of the dwelling, unless used solely as a private garage; c. Other structures from which any "business" is conducted; or d. Other structures used to store "business" property. However, we do cover a structure that contains "business" property solely owned by an "insured" or a tenant of the dwelling, provided that "business" property does not include gaseous or liquid fuel, other than fuel in a permanently installed fuel tank of a vehicle or craft parked or stored in the structure. 3. The limit of liability for this coverage will not be more than 10% of the limit of liability that applies to Coverage A. Use of this coverage does not reduce. SECTION I – PERILS INSURED AGAINST A. Coverage A – Dwelling And Coverage B – Other Structures 1. We insure against direct physical loss to property described in Coverages A and B. 2. We do not insure, however, for loss: a. Excluded under Section I – Exclusions; b. Involving collapse, including any of the following conditions of property or any part of the property: (1) An abrupt falling down or caving in; (2) Loss of structural integrity, including separation of parts of the property or property in danger of falling or caving in; or (3) Any cracking, bulging, sagging, bending, leaning, settling, shrinkage or expansion as such condition relates to (1) or (2) above; except as provided in E.8. Collapse under Section I – Property Coverages; or c. Caused by: (1) Freezing of a plumbing, heating, air conditioning or automatic fire protective sprinkler system or of a household appliance, or by discharge, leakage or overflow from within the system or appliance caused by freezing. This provision does not apply if you have used reasonable care to: (a) Maintain heat in the building; or (b) Shut off the water supply and drain all systems and appliances of water. However, if the building is protected by an automatic fire protective sprinkler system, you must use reasonable care to continue the water supply and maintain heat in the building for coverage to apply. For purposes of this provision, a plumbing system or household appliance does not include a sump, sump pump or related equipment or a roof drain, gutter, downspout or similar fixtures or equipment; (2) Freezing, thawing, pressure or weight of water or ice, whether driven by wind or not, to a: (a) Fence, pavement, patio or swimming pool; (b) Footing, foundation, bulkhead, wall, or any other structure or device that supports all or part of a building, or other structure; (c) Retaining wall or bulkhead that does not support all or part of a building or other structure; or (d) Pier, wharf or dock; (3) Theft in or to a dwelling under construction, or of materials and supplies for use in the construction until the dwelling is finished and occupied; (4) Vandalism and malicious mischief, and any ensuing loss caused by any intentional and wrongful act committed in the course of the vandalism or malicious mischief, if the dwelling has been vacant for more than 60 consecutive days immediately before the loss. A dwelling being constructed is not considered vacant; (5) Mold, fungus or wet rot. However, we do insure for loss caused by mold, fungus or wet rot that is hidden within the walls or ceilings or beneath the floors or above the ceilings of a structure if such loss results from the accidental discharge or overflow of water or steam from within: (a) A plumbing, heating, air conditioning or automatic fire protective sprinkler system, or a household appliance, on the "residence premises"; or (b) A storm drain, or water, steam or sewer pipes, off the "residence premises". For purposes of this provision, a plumbing system or household appliance does not include a sump, sump pump or related equipment or a roof drain, gutter, downspout or similar fixtures or equipment; or (6) Any of the following: (a) Wear and tear, marring, deterioration; (b) Mechanical breakdown, latent defect, inherent vice or any quality in property that causes it to damage or destroy itself; (c) Smog, rust or other corrosion, or dry rot; (d) Smoke from agricultural smudging or industrial operations; (e) Discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape of pollutants unless the discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape is itself caused by a Peril Insured Against named under Coverage C. Pollutants means any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant, including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and waste. Waste includes materials to be recycled, reconditioned or reclaimed; (f) Settling, shrinking, bulging or expansion, including resultant cracking, of bulkheads, pavements, patios, footings, foundations, walls, floors, roofs or ceilings; (g) Birds, rodents or insects; (h) Nesting or infestation, or discharge or release of waste products or secretions, by any animals; or (i) Animals owned or kept by an "insured". SCREEN ENCLOSURE HURRICANE LIMITATION (FOR USE WITH ALL FORMS EXCEPT HO 00 04) Your policy is amended as follows for hurricane losses only. DEFINITIONS The following Definition is added: “Screen Enclosure” means any structure on the residence premises (regardless of whether it is attached to your dwelling) enclosed by screens on more than one side otherwise open to the weather, and not constructed and covered by the same or substantially the same materials as that of the dwelling where you reside. “Pool Cage” means an aluminum framed structure attached to the main dwelling on the residence premises, enclosed by screens on more the one side and otherwise open to the weather. SECTION I – PROPERTY COVERAGES Coverage A – Dwelling This coverage does not increase the limit of liability for Coverage A. The following paragraph 3. is added: 3. We do not cover “screen enclosure(s)” or “pool cage(s)” as defined unless specified on the declarations page and for which an additional premium is paid. If an amount of coverage for “screen enclosure(s)” or “pool cage(s)” is listed on the Declarations page, this amount is part of Coverage A and does not reduce your Coverage A limit of liability. This endorsement does not provide coverage for screen material or costs associated with removing or replacing screens. Coverage B – Other Structures This coverage does not increase the limit of liability for Coverage B. The following paragraph is added: We do not cover “screen enclosure(s)” or “pool cage(s)” as defined unless specified on the Declarations page and for which an additional premium is paid. If an amount of coverage for “screen enclosure(s)” or “pool cage(s)” is listed on the Declarations page, this amount is part of Coverage B and does not reduce your Coverage B limit of liability. This endorsement does not provide coverage for screen material or costs associated with removing or replacing screens. CALENDAR YEAR HURRICANE DEDUCTIBLE (PERCENTAGE) WITH SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTING REQUIREMENT – FLORIDA WARNING: IF THIS POLICY PROVIDES AN INFLATION GUARD OPTION, THE ACTUAL CALENDAR YEAR HURRICANE DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNT AT THE TIME OF LOSS MAY BE HIGHER THAN THE DOLLAR AMOUNT SHOWN IN THE DECLARATIONS. SCHEDULE Calendar Year Hurricane Deductible Percentage Amount: 2% Information required to complete this Schedule, if not shown above, will be shown in the Declarations. The following deductible language is added to this policy: HURRICANE DEDUCTIBLE The deductible for loss caused by a “hurricane” is the Hurricane Deductible as shown in the Schedule above. If a deductible is not shown in the Schedule above, the deductible for Hurricane shown in the Declarations will apply. In the event of a single loss caused by a “hurricane” during the calendar year, this deductible will apply in place of any other deductible stated in the policy. For any subsequent loss caused by a “hurricane” during the calendar year, the deductible applied will be the greater of: 1. The remaining amount of the Hurricane Deductible; or 2. The All Other Perils Deductible amount shown in the Declarations. In no event will the deductible applied to the loss caused by a “hurricane” be less than the All Other Perils Deductible amount shown in the Declarations. Any deductible applied under a policy not issued by us or an insurer in the same insurer group will not be applied to any loss under this policy. If you experience “hurricane” losses in the same calendar year, on more than one policy issued by us or an insurer in the same insurer group for the same insured location, the applicable deductible will be the highest amount stated in any one of the policies. If you incurred a “hurricane” loss, any lower deductibles on policies subsequently issued or renewed by us or an insurer in the same insurer group within the same calendar year covering the same property will not apply to loss caused by “hurricane” until January 1 of the following calendar year. If the renewal or replacement policy provides a lower hurricane deductible than the prior policy and you have not incurred a loss caused by a “hurricane” in that same calendar year, the lower hurricane deductible will take effect on the effective date of the renewal or replacement policy. The Hurricane Deductible applies only to direct physical loss or damage to covered property caused by wind, wind gusts, hail, rain, tornadoes, or cyclones caused by or resulting from a “hurricane.” We require that you promptly report any loss or damage caused by a “hurricane” that is below the hurricane deductible so that we may consider the amount of such loss when adjusting claims for subsequent “hurricane” occurrences that occur during the calendar year. The Hurricane Deductible does not apply to SECTION I – PROPERTY COVERAGES, Additional Coverages, 7. Loss Assessment (if a limit for this coverage is shown in the Declarations). DEFINITIONS: When used in this endorsement: “Hurricane” means a storm system that has been declared to be a hurricane by the National Hurricane Center of the National Weather Service. The duration of the “hurricane” includes the time period, in Florida: 1. Beginning at the time a hurricane warning is issued for any part of Florida by the National Hurricane Center of the National Weather Service; 2. Ending 72 hours following the termination of the last hurricane watch or hurricane warning for anypart of Florida by the National Hurricane Center of the National Weather Service.

* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

January 7, 2024 Sent Via Carrier Portal/Email First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Insurance Company jewilliams@frontlineinsurance.com RE: Insureds : JAMES LITTLEFORD AND AMY LITTLEFORD (hereinafter, “Insureds”) Policy # : 0412241620 Claim # : 01000119556 Property Address : 745 Flamingo Dr., Apollo Beach, FL 33572-2448 Persons most knowledgeable of facts giving rise to the Violations: Jeana Williams, Stan Franklin Dear First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Insurance Company: Please find enclosed the civil remedy notice filed for the above referenced claim. This notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by Florida Statute §624.155 As discussed in greater detail in the notice, the carrier has not attempted in good faith to settle the claimant’s claim when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its claimant and with due regard for its interests. The carrier has done everything possible to delay the claim and refuses to provide any sort of status of the claim. Furthermore, the carrier is required to properly investigate and adjust claims and cannot place that burden upon the insured. This was made clear by the appellate court and the Florida Supreme Court in Allstate Indemnity Co. v. Ruiz, 899 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 2005) (“The Legislature has clearly chosen to impose on the insurance companies a duty to use good faith and fair dealing in processing and litigating the claims of their insured…”). The carrier was first put on notice of the insured’s Hurricane Helene claim on October 7, 2024. Since the commencement of the claim the carrier has failed to timely communicate with the insured. On November 8, 2024, after retaining and through counsel, the insureds requested a complete copy of the file with respect to the investigation of the claim, including, but not limited to any estimates generated, any reports given by the assigned field adjuster, any claim-related communications made between the insureds and the carrier, and any engineering report generated. This documentation has since repeatedly been requested from the assigned Claims Adjuster, Ms. Jeana Williams, on November 11, November 14, November 25, December 6, and December 20, 2024, with no response in kind. This failure to communicate in kind is in violation of F.S. § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) as the carrier has failed to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. On November 11, 2024, the carrier’s assigned engineer from SDII Global, Stan Franklin, inspected the loss. At the time of said inspection, the engineer advised counsel of the Insureds that he would not have to inspect the interior of the property or enter the property. On November 17, 2024, the carrier’s assigned engineering firm, SDII Global, stated that a second site visit would be needed for the claim and that the interior would need to be inspected. The insureds through counsel agreed to a second site inspection and said inspection took place on December 6, 2024. On December 6, 2024, insureds counsel informed the insurer that although the second engineer inspection was to take place, that it did not relieve the insurer of its duty to adjust and provide the estimate for the claim pursuant to F.S. § 627.70131(3)(e) and F.S. § 627.70131(7)(a), as the carrier had neither failed to finish its adjustment and provided any estimate or explanation of coverage prior to January 7, 2025. On December 20, 2024, the assigned engineer, Stan Franklin, found in his estimation, as engineers from this firm hired by the carrier routinely find, that the damage was not due to wind but due to reasons that may be excluded under the policy. To date, even though the information has been requested several times from the carrier, the carrier has not stated the frequency at which it hires SDII Global and its engineers to investigate claims. Routinely, as in this claim, only once Frontline sends out an engineer from SDII Global do they deny the roof, finding that the damages are excluded with no explanation whatsoever as to how it was determined which items of damage were caused by covered or excluded perils, and that the rest of the claim fails to exceed the deductible. This is in violation of F.S. 624.155(1)(b)(1) and 624.155(1)(b)(3) as the carrier is clearly placing the company’s interests before the claimant’s interests and not attempting in good faith to settle claims. Florida Statute 627.70131(3)(e) requires the carrier to provide an estimate within 7 days after the estimate is generated by the insurer’s adjuster. However, it is clear that Frontline failed to provide any estimate or report from its initial field adjuster, instead only providing the document once revised by the Claim Representative, Ms. Jeana Williams, and providing this over ninety-two (92) days after being generated. The insurer must send the policyholder a copy of any detailed estimate of the amount of the loss within 7 days after the estimate is generated by an insurer’s adjuster. On January 7, 2025, over ninety-two (92) days after the reporting of the claim, the carrier finally came to its coverage determination. The carrier made the unilateral determinations that A) the damages to the property, including the interior would be excluded under the policy and therefore be denied and that B) the damages that were covered failed to exceed the deductible on the policy and that the insured would be entitled to $0 after the application of the deductible. It was clear that the damages exceeded the deductible. The carrier’s decision came only after the delay that it had caused and it was solely responsible for. Pursuant to F.S. § 627.70131(7)(a), within 60 days after an insurer receives notice of an initial, reopened, or supplemental property insurance claim from a policyholder, the insurer shall pay or deny such claim or a portion of the claim unless the failure to pay is caused by factors beyond the control of the insurer. The carrier’s failure to come to a timely decision was in violation of F.S. §626.9541(1)(i)(4) as the carrier has failed 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, determine the amounts of partial or full benefits, and agree to coverage, unless payment of the undisputed benefits is prevented by factors beyond the control of the insurer as defined in F.S. 627.70131(5). Furthermore, this undue continual delay and failure to inspect is in violation of F.S. §624.155(1)(b)(1), as the delay was in direct disregard of the insured’s interests and F.S. §624.155(1)(b)(3), as the carrier has failed to promptly settle the claim. Additionally, as the carrier denied coverage without conducting a reasonable investigation based upon available information in the statutorily allotted time, the carrier violated F.S. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d). Moreover, in failing to reach a coverage determination in the statutorily allotted time, Frontline failed to adopt and implement standards pursuant to F.S. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) for the proper investigation of claims. There was no explanation whatsoever as to which items of damage were caused by covered or excluded perils. The insured has been compelled to obtain an independently adjusted estimate totaling in the amount of $131,648.93 that would be needed to repair the property back to its pre-loss condition. The insured has complied with all the carrier’s requests to date, including, but not limited to allowing the carrier to conduct two separate engineer inspections, on November 11, 2024, and December 6, 2024, and providing the carrier with a copy of the insureds’ Sworn Proof of Loss on November 17, 2024, with insureds independently adjusted estimate and photographs. On November 24, 2024, in response to the insureds’ Sworn Proof of Loss, Frontline’s assigned representative, Ms. Jeana Williams, sent a letter stating that Frontlines investigation of the claim was prejudiced and that the Sworn Proof of Loss failed to comply with requirements set within the Policy. In response to said letter, on November 25, 2024, insureds counsel pointed out factually incorrect and misrepresented portions of said letter, including that the date of loss was clearly provided and that a detailed estimate with photos showing the damage was provided with Sworn Proof of Loss. Frontline’s letter in response to the Sworn Proof of loss was in violation of F.S. § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), as it misrepresented pertinent facts relating to the coverage at issue. Counsel for the insureds additionally requested that Frontline indicate how it has been prejudiced in its investigation as the insureds 1) allowed Frontline’s adjuster access to the property, 2) allowed the engineer access to the property, 3) provided copious amounts of documents and photographs, including inspection reports showing no damage before the date of loss, 4) agreed to conduct a recorded statement, and 5) provided a proof of loss with a detailed estimate and photographs. To date the carrier’s adjuster has failed to address this letter, instead electing to be unresponsive in contravention to F.S. § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c). Furthermore, this unresponsiveness by the carrier is in violation of F.S. § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g) and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h), as the carrier has failed to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim and clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary. The carrier has still refused to pay the fully covered amount owed under the policy, instead electing to fail to adjust the claim in the appropriate amount of time as provided under F.S. § 627.70131(7)(a) to just deny the roof portion of the claim and decide that the rest of the claim was under deductible. It is clear that the carrier is not treating the claimant with good faith claims conduct; failing to pay a claim clearly owed; not adjusting the claim and evaluating the loss properly, promptly and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to the claimant; failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims and placing the company’s interests before the claimant’s interests; not training, supervising or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made; refusing to pay the full amount owed to the insured despite the fact that the damages are covered under the policy; looking for ways to delay full recovery or any recovery to the insured; and refusing to provide coverage for the claimant’s loss in a timely manner. The Carrier’s actions are in violation of Florida Statutes §§ 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), 627.4137(1), and Fla. Stat. §627.70131. The actions taken by Frontline in the handling/adjustment of the insured’s claim were willful, wanton, malicious, and in reckless disregard for the rights of any insureds and occur with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice, and further are in violation of Florida Statutes §624.155 and F.S. §626.954. Indeed, when performing a search on the Florida Department of Financial Services website’s Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation page the results of searches of violations of the statutes referenced herein by the carrier returned the following results thereby indicating that the number of times they occur rise to the level of a general business practice, and warrant punitive damages: §624.155(1)(b)(1) = 5,573 §624.155(1)(b)(3) = 3,809 §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) = 5,393 §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) = 4,133 §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) = 3,818 §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) = 2,879 §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g) = 2,012 §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h) = 1,274 §626.9541(1)(i)(4) = 732 Based upon the above-referenced acts and omissions, the carrier has breached the insurance contract by failing to pay the amount due to the insured, by denying coverage which existed under the insurance contract with the insured in the instant dispute, by failing to adjust the loss with the insureds, and by failing to perform and adequate investigation. These are violations and breaches of the policy language cited above. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, the carrier must: 1) Pay the complete covered loss in the amount of $131,648.93 less any applicable policy deductible; 2) Pay the statutory interest on the amount of unpaid damages from the date of loss to the date payment is finally made; and 3) Provide any additional claim documents to the insureds and the insureds’ counsel. A copy of this letter and filed form submitted to the FDFS has been emailed to the carrier. The specific policy provisions the carrier violated are the loss payment provision, the loss settlement provision, and the coverage provisions. Specifically, the loss payment provision states “we will adjust all losses with you.” Yet, the carrier did not consult the homeowner in deciding who would investigate the cause or amount of damages, and what the ultimate payment should be. The other provisions are pasted on the pages following the signature block. If you have any questions or concerns, please send all correspondence via email to Blake@klinglaw.com and Jorlyn@KlingLaw.com to ensure a prompt response. We ask that all correspondence be done via email rather than regular mail. Should you need to send something regular mail, please advise us prior to sending same via the emails above. Sincerely, Blake M. Wallace, Esq. Blake M. Wallace Attorney at Law Enclosed: Civil Remedy Filing

Comments

User Id		Date Added		Comment
akling@klinglawfirm.com		05-19-2025		JAMES LITTLEFORD AND AMY LITTLEFORD through their attorney, Blake M. Wallace, hereby withdraws this civil remedy notice pursuant to settlement.
akoltnow@kelleykronenberg.com		03-05-2025		On behalf of First Protective Insurance Company (“Frontline”), this firm responds to the complainants, James and Amy Littleford’s Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations, Filing No. 799796, filed with the Department of Financial Services on January 7, 2025 (the “Notice”). Frontline objects to the Notice as legally deficient in that the complainants failed to comply with section 624.155(3)(b)2, Fla. Stat., which requires the Notice include the facts and circumstances giving rise to each violation. The Notice contains no details whatsoever that support or provide notice to the carrier of specific violations regarding the insurance company’s alleged acts of “not attempting in good faith to settle claims”, or “failing to promptly settle claims, when the obligation to settle a claim has become reasonable clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage”, or “failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims”, or “misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue”, or “failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims”, or “denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information”, or “failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim”, or “failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary”, or “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”. This boilerplate listing of alleged statutory violations, without stating any facts or circumstances applicable to each alleged violation, provides insufficient notice to Frontline of the statutory provisions that Frontline has allegedly violated. Additionally, in response to the requirement to reference specific policy language that is relevant to the violation, the complainants referenced numerous policy provisions, many of which have no bearing to the claim. For example, the complainant referenced exclusionary provisions for collapse, freezing of plumbing systems, shut off of water supply and drain systems, vandalism, smoke, pollutants, among other provisions that have no relevance to the reported damages or Frontline’s denial of coverage for such damages. This boilerplate listing of policy provisions provides insufficient notice to Frontline of the specific policy language relevant to the alleged violations. Without waiving any of the deficiencies in the notice that render the notice invalid, Frontline denies the allegations and denies that it has violated any Florida Statute in its handling of the claim, nor has it breached the insurance contract as required pursuant to section 624.1551, Fla. Stat., for an insured to prevail in a claim for extracontractual damages under section 624.155(1)(b), Fla. Stat. Additionally, the Notice contains factual errors rendering the Notice deficient. For example, the complainants stated that Frontline “refuses to provide any sort of status of the claim . . . [and] . . . has failed to timely communicate with insured.” These statements are not accurate as Frontline has been in constant communication with the insureds and/or their representatives about the status of the claim. The complainants also allege that they repeatedly requested copies of Frontline’s investigative file, estimates generated and internal reports from the assigned filed adjuster without “no response.” This statement is false in that Frontline advised the complainants’ attorney that no damage estimate had been generated and the remaining request for documents were not subject to disclosure to an insured. On October 7, 2024, the insureds’ public adjuster reported damage to Frontline that occurred on 9/26/2024 due to Hurricane Helene. That same day, the field adjuster promptly inspected the damage with the insured and public adjuster present. At the time of the inspection, the home had been gutted for a 16-inch outside flood line and a 10-inch flood line inside the house. The field adjuster observed no wind related damage and, therefore, did not prepare a damage estimate. Frontline called the insureds and left a message advising of the results of the field adjuster’s investigation and further advised that an engineer had been assigned to reinspect the roof. Also on October 7, 2024, Frontline acknowledged, in writing, receipt of the claim and requested the insureds complete an enclosed sworn proof of loss form within 30 days from the date of the letter. On November 8, 2024, Frontline received a letter of representation from Kling Law. Attorney Kling also requested a copy of the field adjuster’s damage estimate, investigative reports, photographs from the underwriting and claims files, and the field adjuster’s narrative report. The field adjuster did not prepare a damage estimate. Moreover, the reports and information he requested are either privileged and confidential or part of the insurer’s internal claims handling and investigation and is not subject to disclosure to an insured. The following day, Frontline acknowledged the attorney’s letter of representation and requested the law firm’s W9. On November 10, 2024, Frontline received an email from the public adjuster with a damage estimate for $131,648.93, representing the cost to replace the roof, to repair exterior stucco, to replace the windows, to replace drywall throughout the interior, and to replace the PVC fence. Also on November 10, 2024, Frontline sent the insureds, through their attorney, a reservation of rights letter and requested the insureds permit the engineer’s inspection, and provide flood documents and repair estimates, permit a recorded statement, and provide a pre-purchase home inspection report and seller’s disclosure for the property. Frontline again requested the insureds complete a sworn proof of loss form. On November 11, 2024, engineer Steven Syrcle, P.E., with SDii Global, inspected the roof. No one was present at the inspection. Also on November 11, 2024, attorney Kling requested a copy of the policy and requested information about Frontline’s business practices and policies relating to Frontline’s retention of the engineering firm SDii. The information he requested pertains to Frontline’s internal business policies and practices and is not subject to disclosure to an insured. Frontline emailed the attorney a copy of the policy and advised that the engineer will be calling to reschedule a reinspection of the interior. On November 14, 2024, the desk adjuster advised the insureds’ attorney of missing information needed regarding the insureds’ flood claim. The attorney emailed the adjuster additional information regarding the flood claim that same day. On November 15, 2024, Frontline received the insureds’ incomplete sworn proof of loss form, and on November 16, 2024, Frontline received an updated sworn proof of loss form. On November 24, 2024, the desk adjuster responded to the insureds’ attorney and advised that the sworn proof of loss was not submitted within 30 days and identified critical missing information. Frontline advised that the insureds’ failure to timely comply with the policy conditions prejudiced Frontline’s ability to properly and timely evaluate the claim. Notwithstanding, Frontline advised it would continue its evaluation and would continue to consider any new documents submitted. On December 6, 2024, engineer Stan Franklin, P.E., with SDii Global, inspected the property, including the interior. Based on the engineers’ inspections, Mr. Franklin concluded there was no evidence of damage due to wind-driven rain through the windows, no evidence of moisture migration through the roof, the missing screen enclosures were caused by Hurricanes Milton and Helene, the fence was displaced from Hurricane Milton, and no roof tiles were wind-damaged. Mr. Franklin also opined that his evaluation of the interior was hindered due to the widespread demolition that had occurred prior to his site visit. On December 6, 2024, attorney Kling again requested the field adjuster’s damage estimate, investigative reports, photographs from the underwriting and claims files, and the field adjuster’s narrative report. These reports are not subject to disclosure to an insured as they are part of the Frontline’s internal claims handling and investigation. On December 12, 2024, the desk adjuster responded to the attorney’s correspondence and advised that the field adjuster was unable to determine the cause of loss and did not produce a damage estimate. Upon receipt of the engineer’s report dated December 20, 2024, Frontline requested the field adjuster prepare a damage estimate for the covered fence damage. Frontline timely provided a copy of the estimate to complainants’ counsel. The estimate was not revised by the desk adjuster. Frontline’s coverage determination was made as soon as its investigation was concluded. Due to factors beyond the control of the insurer, including the insureds’ failure to timely provide requested information, the coverage determination could not be made within 60 days. On January 7, 2025, Frontline issued its coverage determination letter and advised the insureds, through their attorneys, that the field adjuster and engineers’ inspections revealed flood damages to the lower-level interior, lower-level exterior, and to the interior and exterior contents. The inspections additionally revealed damage to the roof that were existing or caused by material shrinkage, manufacturing defects, thermal expansion and contraction, foot traffic and age-related deterioration, cracks to the exterior due to settling, and unrelated lanai ceiling damage. Frontline further advised that the fence was displaced, and screens were missing in the screened enclosure. Frontline provided a damage estimate to repair the covered fence damage for $1,955.70, which was less than the policy deductible of $8,777.00. Therefore, no payment was made. Frontline cited to the policy provisions excluding coverage and further advised the insureds that it would consider any new information submitted in support of the claim and the denial of the claim did not relieve the insureds of their duty to maintain the property and to protect the property from further damage. That same day, Frontline emailed the insureds’ attorney a copy of the coverage determination letter, the damage estimate, statement of loss, dispute notice letter, and the engineer’s report. On January 7, 2025, the insureds filed this Notice, and, on February 7, 2025, the insureds also filed a Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation. Without waiving the deficiencies with the Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation, Frontline invoked its right to request the insureds participate in mediation. Since responding to the Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation on February 19, 2025, Frontline, through counsel, has been attempting to coordinate and schedule the mediation with the insureds’ counsel. Pursuant to section 624.1551, Fla. Stat., enacted into law on May 26, 2022, an insured must establish that the insurer breached the insurance contract to prevail in a claim for extracontractual damages. An insured can no longer base a claim of “bad faith” solely on an insurer’s statutory duty to act reasonably and in good faith. Here, the complainants have not alleged facts to support that Frontline breached any term of the policy. Frontline timely and thoroughly investigated the reported loss and based on the inspections by the field adjuster and engineers, determined the covered damage to the fence fell below the policy’s hurricane deductible, and the remaining damage observed to the building structure was expressly excluded under the policy. Frontline conducted a reasonable and diligent investigation to assess the cause of the damage reported. Frontline promptly communicated with the insureds and their representative throughout the investigation—all within the mandates of Florida law. Throughout the handling of the insureds’ insurance claim, Frontline has acted in good faith towards the interests of its insureds. Frontline investigated the loss in accordance with the policy provisions and standard claims handling practices and has abided by the terms of the insurance contract. Frontline, therefore, denies any allegations to the contrary. We trust the foregoing is sufficient to advise you of Frontline’s position regarding this matter and fully responds to the civil remedy notice filed by James and Amy Littleford. Respectfully submitted by: Amy L. Koltnow Esq., Kelley Kronenberg

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