Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     800120
Filing Accepted:  1/9/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
WESLEY   First Name   JOHN
Street Address * 4119 BAYSHORE BLVD NE
City, State Zip * SAINT PETERSBURG, FL 33703
Email Address * SERVICE@PROPERTYPEOPLELAW.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   WESLEY   First Name   JOHN
Policy # * H3FL000045840 Claim #* 202409005317
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* ILANI First Name * DANIEL Initial
Street Address* 80 SW 8TH STREET, SUITE 2590
City, State Zip* MIAMI , FLORIDA 33130
Email Address * SERVICE@PROPERTYPEOPLELAW.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   SLIDE INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 17227
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* ALL ADJUSTERS, SUPERVISORS, MANAGERS, ATTORNEYS, AND INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH AND/OR RETAINED BY SLIDE INSURANCE COMPANY CONCERNING THE CLAIM AT ISSUES; SLIDE INSURANCE COMPANY’S DESK ADJUSTER(S); SLIDE INSURANCE COMPANY’S FIELD ADJUSTER(S).
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)(2) Making claims payments to insureds or beneficiaries not accompanied by a statement setting forth the coverage under which payments are being made.
624.155(1)(b)(3) Except as to liability coverages, failing to promptly settle claims, when the obligation to settle a claim has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage.
626.9541(1)(i)(2) A material misrepresentation made to an insured or any other person having an interest in the proceeds payable under such contract or policy, for the purpose and with the intent of effecting settlement of such claims, loss, or damage under such contract or policy on less favorable terms than those provided in, and contemplated by, such contract or policy.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e) Failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and, as to partial coverage, the dollar amount or extent of coverage, or failing to provide a written statement that the claim is being investigated, upon the written request of the insured within 30 days after proof-of-loss statements have been completed.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f) Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of the basis in the insurance policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g) Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h) Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i) Failing to pay personal injury protection insurance claims within the time periods required by s. 627.736(4)(b).
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

SLIDE INSURANCE COMPANY failed to adequately adjust and pay the claim covered under the subject insurance policy. Specifically, but not limited to, SLIDE INSURANCE COMPANY failed to properly apply the Loss Settlement and Loss Payment provisions of the policy. In addition to the policy sections specifically cited herein, any endorsements or changes to said sections are relevant to the Insured’s claim for civil remedy. There may be additional policy language relevant to this violation that may be discovered.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

SLIDE INSURANCE COMPANY (hereinafter the “Insurance Company”) issued a homeowners insurance policy to its insured, JOHN & KAREN WESLEY (the “Insured”), for the insured property located at 4119 Bayshore Blvd NE , Saint Petersburg, FL 33703. The subject Policy afforded various types of coverages including coverage for damage to dwelling, other structures, personal property, and for loss of use. On or about September 26, 2024, while the subject Policy was in full force and effect, the Insured’s home was damaged as a result of a covered loss. The Insured subsequently notified the Insurance Company of this loss. Thereafter, the Insurance Company acknowledged the loss and assigned claim number 202409005317 to the loss. The Insured complied with all policy conditions and cooperated with the Insurance Company’s investigation efforts. The Insurance Company performed a cursory inspection and failed to retain the unbiased experts necessary to adequately inspect the property to restore the property to its pre-loss condition. Shortly after, the insurance company denied this loss based upon an unqualified evaluation of the damages. Notably, the Insurance Company failed to retain an expert to inspect the property to fully evaluate this claim, relying solely on an inadequate inspection concerning a subject matter and claim their representative is ill-equipped and unqualified to properly evaluate. The Insured and Insured’s representative provided the Insurance Company with all claim-related documents including an estimate to repair covered damages in the amount of $109,575.87 and other supporting documentation and/or information. Nonetheless, the Insurance Company continues to disregard and ignore the Insured’s claim and request for adequate payment. The Insurance Company has failed to issue proper payment for the claim and has failed to issue sufficient payment to compensate the Insured for damages and repairs covered by the policy and held to be contractually covered by Florida law. The Insured provided the Insurance Company with documentation evaluating the loss, and rather than issuing the proper payment or attempting to reach an agreement with its Insured, the Insurance Company is delaying and denying the claim. Upon information and belief, the Insurance Company performs the subject actions as a business practice, including delaying the claim and/or issuing insufficient payments in an attempt to dissuade its insured from pursuing the claim to the detriment of its insured to increase financial profits. Based upon self-serving conclusions regarding the cause of loss, the Insurance Company’s conclusions are disconcerting because they are demonstrably incorrect. Further, they directly conflict with the only first-hand accounts of the loss. To be clear, the Insured had personal knowledge of the condition of the property prior to the date of the loss and the amounts owed to make the necessary repairs. That said, the Insurance Company’s refusal to properly investigate, adjust, and fully compensate the Insured for their claim evidences the Insurance Company’s violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), Florida Statutes, which requires the Insurance Company to “adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.” All available information leads to one conclusion—the Insured’s property was damaged by a covered cause of loss for which the Insured is entitled to full and complete compensation. The Insurance Company’s obligation to promptly settle the Insured’s claim is undeniable, and therefore, the Insurance Company has also violated sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), Florida Statutes. The Insurance Company’s conduct is egregious because the Insurance Company purposely ignored relevant facts, even facts from its own experts, that would have confirmed coverage for the Insured’s loss to avoid having to compensate the Insured for damages. To make matters even worse, the Insurance Company has failed to timely respond to the Insured and issue payment for the damages to the property to allow necessary repairs. The actions taken by the Insurance Company in the handling and adjustment of the Insured’s claim are willful, wanton, and in disregard for the rights of the Insured, and have occurred with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice in violation of the law. The practice includes the Insurance Company’s ongoing inaction of ignoring relevant and accessible information that supports coverage in order to avoid compensating its Insured for covered losses. To be clear, the recent ruling in Fortune v. First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Insurance, out of Florida’s 2nd District Court of Appeal, clears up what this carrier must do the cure this CRN. Similar to here, In Fortune, the Insureds timely filed a claim with their homeowners insurance policy upon suffering damage to their property. The Insurer investigated the claim and denied, contending that the amount of damage did not exceed the Insureds’ deductible. Upon presenting the public adjuster’s estimate and all other materials to the insurance company, the Insurer invoked the appraisal process under the policy.Thereafter, the Insureds filed a Civil Remedy Notice alleging that the insurer made a lowball offer and “flagrantly breached” its duty to attempt in good faith to settle claims, under applicable Florida statutes. Additionally, the Insureds alleged that the Insurer refused to reassess its payment of benefits and the basis for payment and that the Insurer “turn[ed] a blindeye and refuse[d] to properly adjust and settle the claim.” Noteworthy in Fortune is that although the Homeowners' CRN did not state a specific cure amount, it did state that they had provided their public adjustor's estimate to the Insurer which covered "the full scope of necessary repairs to the direct and ensuing damages." Thus, the Insured had the public adjuster's estimate and knew the amount the Homeowners sought. Neither the statute nor this court's precedent requires the CRN to contain a specific amount sought to cure the alleged bad faith. See § 624.155(3)(b); see Hunt v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 112 So. 3d 547, 549 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (recognizing that an appraisal award satisfies the condition precedent of "a determination of liability and extent of damages owed"). In addition to the above statutory violations, the Insurance Company’s adjuster violated the following ethical requirements of Florida Administrative Code 69B-220.201. (3) Code of Ethics…An adjuster shall put the duty for fair and honest treatment of the claimant above the adjuster’s own interests in every instance. The following are standards of conduct that define ethical behavior, and shall constitute a code of ethics that shall be binding on all adjusters: (b) An adjuster shall treat all claimants equally. 2. An adjuster shall adjust all claims strictly in accordance with the insurance contract. (c) An adjuster shall not approach investigations, adjustments, and settlements in a manner prejudicial to the insured. (d) An adjuster shall make truthful and unbiased reports of the facts after making a complete investigation. (e) An adjuster shall handle every adjustment and settlement with honesty and integrity, and allow a fair adjustment or settlement to all parties without any remuneration to himself except that to which he is legally entitled. (f) An adjuster, upon undertaking the handling of a claim, shall act with dispatch and due diligence in achieving a proper disposition of the claim. (o) An adjuster shall not undertake the adjustment of any claim concerning which the adjuster is not currently competent and knowledgeable as to the terms and conditions of the insurance coverage, or which otherwise exceeds the adjuster’s current expertise. In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. During the adjustment of the Insured’s claim, the Insurance Company breached this duty by failing to adhere to and comply with the above referenced obligations. To cure the defects outlined above, the Insurance Company must: 1. Immediately pay the Insured a cure of $109,575.87for losses suffered as a result of the claim; 2. Immediately issue payments for statutory interest for the late payments and owed profit/overhead; 3. Act fairly and honestly towards the Insured and with due regard for their interests; 4. Hire a fair and unbiassed adjuster and experts to properly assess the Insured’s damages; 5. Tender any additional insurance proceeds due and owing to the Insured that would reasonably place the Insured back into a pre-loss condition; 6. Timely adjust the claim with the insured and avoid/limit any additional delay, costs, and prejudice that the Insurance Company’s conduct above has caused and continues to cause the Insured; and 7. Compensate the Insured for the attorneys’ fees and costs accrued as a result of the Insurance Company’s bad faith conduct. Failure to cure all defects during the 60-day safe harbor period may result in additional extra-contractual damages.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
Service@propertypeoplelaw.com 03-25-2025 WITHDRAWN
mnixon@slideinsurance.com 01-25-2025 Via E-mail & Posting on DFS Website Daniel Ilani, Esq. The Property People FL, P.A. 80 SW 8th St., Ste 2590 Miami, FL 33130 service@propertypeoplelaw.com Complainant: John Wesley Insured: John Wesley Claim No: 202409005317 Policy No: H3FL000045840 Date of loss: 09/26/2024 CRN Filing No.: 800120 Dear Mr. Ilani: Please allow this correspondence to serve as Slide Insurance Company’s (“Slide”)’s response to the Civil Remedy Notice (“CRN”) that was filed on behalf of John Wesley (“Insured”). Herein, we include a brief factual history of the underlying claim and actions by Slide which reveals it has acted properly in responding to the underlying claim and in compliance with its contractual and legal obligations. Slide denies each and every allegation brought forth in the CRN and denies any wrongdoing in the handling of the underlying claim. Additionally, Slide denies violating any Florida Statute or Administrative Code as set forth more specifically herein. Moreover, Slide denies violating any provisions or duties set forth in the applicable policy of insurance. Slide further states that the facts and circumstances that are set forth in the CRN, while incomplete and misleading, do not give rise to any violation of any statute or policy provision referenced in the Notice. Furthermore, Slide challenges the validity of the CRN for lacking specificity. See, e.g., Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So.3d 875, 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (affirming dismissal for civil remedy notice’s failure to either strictly, or substantially, comply with statutory specificity requirement); Demase v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company, 351 So.3d 136, 138-39 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022) (holding that the trial court properly determined that a civil remedy notice that failed to state with specificity the relevant policy language was legally insufficient). Finally, the CRN is improper as the Insured failed to establish that Slide breached the policy of insurance, as required by Fla. Stat. § 624.1551. CLAIM FACTS The underlying claim was reported on September 27, 2024, as a claim for alleged damages related to Hurricane Helene. Slide promptly adjusted the loss, including but not limited, to, sending Independent Adjuster Kyle Wallace to inspect the subject property, and Roof Consultant Rick Wolf of Precision Claim Solutions and Forensic Engineer Brent Cornelison of Keystone Experts and Engineers to reinspect the subject property. Based on Slide’s investigation and evaluation of the underlying claim, Slide notified the Insured that there is no coverage for the loss pursuant to the Policy’s terms, conditions, endorsements, limitations, and exclusions. Thus, Slide maintains that it has acted in accordance with the terms of the subject insurance policy, and the law, and has acted in good faith towards the Insured. Slide denies that it violated any statutes or committed the acts asserted in the CRN. Slide neither waives nor is estopped from asserting any and all rights that it may have in law or under the terms of the policy. Slide expressly reserves all such rights without exception or limitation. REASON FOR THE NOTICE The CRN alleges four (4) reasons for the filing of the Notice. However, no specific facts or circumstances are provided to support these allegations. Notwithstanding, Slide denies the allegations as follows: 1. Claim Denial: This allegation is without basis and therefore denied. Slide acted in accordance with its duties and obligations pursuant to the policy of insurance as well as Florida law. Accordingly, Slide’s actions are adequately supported by law and fact. Thus, this allegation is without basis and therefore denied. 2. Claim Delay: Slide denies any delay in the claims handling process of the underlying loss as is evident from the facts outlined above. Slide promptly acknowledged the claim and timely initiated its investigation of the loss including inspection(s) of the subject property. Slide acted in accordance with its duties and obligations pursuant to the policy of insurance. Thus, Slide asserts that this allegation is without basis and therefore denied. 3. Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer: Slide denies that it extended any unsatisfactory settlement offers to the Insured. Slide asserts that it has acted in good faith towards its Insured at all times. Thus, this allegation is without basis and therefore denied. 4. Unfair Trade Practice: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is wholly denied. The Insured has submitted no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. The handling and administration of this claim occurred with the expediency and timeliness allowed by the statutory requirements imposed upon Slide. At no time did Slide, its agents, or its employees delay the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. The facts show that Slide acted promptly with respect to the investigation of the underlying claim and made communications as necessary to adjust the claim in a prompt and appropriate matter. Information necessary and relevant to the proceeding of the claim, were communicated to the Insured or his representatives in an appropriate manner. Thus, this allegation is without basis and therefore denied. ALLEGED STATUTORY VIOLATIONS The CRN alleges multiple statutory violations. However, no specific facts or circumstances are provided to support these allegations. Notwithstanding, Slide denies each and every allegation of statutory violation individually as follows: 1. 624.155(1)(b)(1): Denied. The underlying claim was investigated and adjusted in as thorough and expedient a manner as possible. Moreover, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 2. 624.155(1)(b)(2): Denied. Accordingly, Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it.? Moreover, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 3. 624.155(1)(b)(3): Denied. Slide has not failed to promptly settle the underlying claim. The underlying claim was investigated and adjusted in as thorough and expedient a manner as possible.?Following the investigation and evaluation of the underlying claim, the Insured was notified that there is no coverage for the alleged loss pursuant to the Policy’s terms, conditions, endorsements, limitations, and exclusions. Accordingly, Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it.? Moreover, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 4. 626.9541(1)(i)(2): Denied. Slide has not made any material misrepresentations to the Insured or any other person having an interest in the proceeds payable under the subject policy for insurance. The underlying claim has been investigated and adjusted in as thorough and expedient a manner as possible. Slide routinely communicated relevant information to the Insured and/or their representatives. Thus, any such allegation is without merit and unsupported by the facts of the underlying claim. Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Finally, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 5. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Denied. This allegation is without basis. Slide has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of claims at all times during the investigation of the subject matter. The aforementioned facts demonstrate that Slide employed proper and customary claims practices in the investigation and adjustment of this claim including, but not limited to, inspection(s) of the insured property and timely communications with the Insured and/or their representatives. Accordingly, Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Finally, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 6. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b): Denied.? This allegation is without basis.? Slide has been forthcoming and truthful regarding the pertinent claim facts and/or insurance policy provisions relating to the reported loss. Slide’s correspondences and communications to the Insured and their representatives proves this fact.? Accordingly, Slide’s asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it.? Finally, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 7. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c): Denied. This allegation is without basis. Slide has consistently acted promptly upon all communications with respect to this claim as previously outlined. Slide has adjusted the underlying loss in as thorough and expedient a manner as possible. Moreover, Slide routinely communicated with the Insured and/or their representatives regarding the underlying claim. Thus, Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Any assertions to the contrary are unsupported by the facts. 8. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d): Denied. Slide has not denied the underlying claim without reasonable investigation of the reported loss. As referenced in the factual narrative above, Slide investigated the reported claim and adjusted the loss in as thorough and expedient a manner as possible.? Following the investigation and evaluation of the underlying claim, the Insured was notified that there is no coverage for the alleged loss pursuant to the Policy’s terms, conditions, endorsements, limitations, and exclusions. Accordingly, there is simply no support for this allegation and Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Finally, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 9. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e): Denied. This allegation is without basis.? As referenced in the factual narrative above, Slide investigated the reported claim and notified the Insured that there is no coverage for the alleged loss pursuant to the Policy’s terms, conditions, endorsements, limitations, and exclusions. There is simply no support for this allegation and Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Finally, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 10. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f): Denied. Slide did not fail to provide an explanation for its denial of the claim. Slide has conducted a reasonable investigation of the reported loss as referenced in the factual narrative above. Thus, there is simply no support for this allegation and Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Finally, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 11. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g): Denied.? This allegation is without basis.? Slide promptly notified the Insured and/or their representatives regarding the pertinent claim facts and information needed relating to the claim. Slide’s numerous communications prove this fact.? Accordingly, Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it.? Finally, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 12. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h): Denied.? This allegation is without basis.? Slide clearly and promptly notified the Insured and/or their representatives regarding the pertinent claim facts and specific information needed relating to the claim. Slide’s numerous communications to the insureds and her representatives prove this fact.? Moreover, Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it.? Finally, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 13. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i): Denied. Slide does not understand the basis of this allegation, as the alleged loss does not involve a motor vehicle accident and personal injury protection benefits. Nonetheless, Slide denies any unfair claim settlement practices. Slide has acted fairly and honestly towards the Insured.? The underlying claim was investigated and adjusted in as thorough and expedient a manner as possible.?Following the investigation and evaluation of the underlying claim, the Insured was notified that there is no coverage for the alleged loss pursuant to the Policy’s terms, conditions, endorsements, limitations, and exclusions. Thus, Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Finally, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. ALLEGED FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE VIOLATIONS The CRN alleges multiple violations of the Florida Administrative Code. However, no specific facts or circumstances are provided to support these allegations. Notwithstanding, Slide denies each and every allegation of violating the Florida Administrative Code individually as follows: 1. 69B-220.201(3): Denied. Slide’s adjusters have at all times acted fairly and honestly towards the Insured in the adjustment of the underlying claim. Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the requirements of this section of the administrative code. The Insured’s assertions to the contrary are unsupported by the facts. 2. 69B-220.201(3)(b): Denied. Slide’s adjusters have at all times acted fairly and honestly towards the Insured in the adjustment of the underlying claim, treating all claimants equally. Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the requirements of this section of the administrative code. The Insured’s assertions to the contrary are unsupported by the facts. 3. 69B-220.201(3)(b)2. Denied. Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the requirements of this section of the administrative code. Slide adjusted this claim strictly in accordance with the insurance contract. The Insured’s assertions to the contrary are unsupported by the facts. 4. 69B-220.201(3)(c): Denied. Slide’s adjusters have at all times acted fairly and honestly towards the Insured in the adjustment of the underlying claim, treating all claimants equally. Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the requirements of this section of the administrative code. The Insured’s assertions to the contrary are unsupported by the facts. 5. 69B-220.201(3)(d): Denied. Slide’s adjusters have at all times acted fairly and honestly towards the Insured in the adjustment of the underlying claim. Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the requirements of this section of the administrative code. The Insured’s assertions to the contrary are unsupported by the facts. 6. 69B-220.201(3)(e): Denied. Slide’s adjusters have at all times acted fairly and honestly towards the Insured in the adjustment of the underlying claim. Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the requirements of this section of the administrative code. The Insured’s assertions to the contrary are unsupported by the facts. 7. 69B-220.201(3)(f): Denied. Slide’s adjusters have at all times acted fairly and honestly towards the Insured in the adjustment of the underlying claim. Slide’s adjusters have also acted with due diligence in achieving a proper disposition of the claim. Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the requirements of this section of the administrative code. The Insured’s assertions to the contrary are unsupported by the facts. 8. 69B-220.201(3)(o): Denied. Slide does not understand the basis for this alleged violation, as its adjusters are competent and knowledgeable as to the terms and conditions of the operative insurance policy. Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the requirements of this section of the administrative code. The Insured’s assertions to the contrary are unsupported by the facts. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE INSURANCE POLICY The CRN fails to allege specific violations of the insurance policy and provides no specific facts or circumstances of wrongdoing. The boilerplate CRN merely sets forth blanket allegations of wrongdoing, without further information. As such, the CRN is defective, as it failed to specifically identify the policy language that is the subject of the alleged violation, and further failed to include sufficient facts to put Slide on notice of the alleged violations. Notwithstanding, Slide denies any and all allegations of policy violations. All actions by Slide were done in compliance with the applicable Policy. As indicated above, Slide thoroughly investigated the reported loss including inspection(s) of the subject property. Thus, it is clear that Slide has acted in compliance with the Policy. Slide asserts that it has at all times complied with the terms of the Policy and has complied with all applicable provisions of the Policy and Florida Statutes in the handling of this matter. STATEMENTS AS TO CURING THE DEFECTS OUTLINED IN THE NOTICE The CRN asserts that Slide must tender all insurance benefits due and owing. Additionally, the CRN alleges that Slide must pay the Insured’s attorneys’ fees and costs when the Insured is not entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Fla. Stat. §627.428(4). Nevertheless, the method for curing violations alleged in a Civil Remedy Notice is not determined by the Insured. Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co., 753 So. 2d So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). Accordingly, Florida Statutes Section 624.155 does not impose on an insurer the obligation to pay whatever the Insured demands. Section 624.155(2)(d) would have no effect or purpose under such an interpretation. Thus, Slide reasserts that it has acted in good faith towards its Insured at all times. Slide references to all the facts herein, which unequivocally demonstrate Slide’s expedient and timely administration of the Insured’s claim. Slide further asserts its full and strict compliance with the Policy and reiterates that it has acted properly in responding to the underlying claim in compliance with its contractual and legal obligations. Slide denies any wrongdoing in the handling of the underlying claim. Additionally, Slide denies violating any Florida Statute, Administrative Code, or code of ethics. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the documented facts of this claim establish that Slide acted diligently in its claims response and adequately performed its obligations under the policy of insurance and Florida law. Thus, the facts contradict all allegations that Slide has in any manner acted improperly or contrary to its contractual obligations to the Insured in this claim. Herein, Slide has attempted to fully and adequately respond to the allegations the Insured allege in the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation filed with the Department. Should there be any questions or further inquiry with respect to this matter, please contact the undersigned at (813) 761-1866 or at mnixon@slideinsurance.com. Sincerely, /s/ Michael Nixon Michael Nixon, Esq. Staff Counsel
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