Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     800541
Filing Accepted:  1/13/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
PALACIO   First Name   YOSVANY CAMACHO
Street Address * 4701 4TH STREET W
City, State Zip * LEHIGH ACRES, FL 33971
Email Address * SERVICE@PROPERTYPEOPLELAW.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   PALACIO   First Name   YOSVANY CAMACHO
Policy # * 04650138 Claim #* 202411017745
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, YOSVANY CAMACHO PALACIO (the “Insured”), for the insured property located at 4701 4th Street W, Lehigh Acres, FL 33971. 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 October 9, 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 202411017745 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 $75,231. 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 $75,231.for 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
mthornton@slideinsurance.com 03-12-2025 Via E-mail & Posting on DFS Website Daniel Ilani, Esq. The Property People FL, PA 80 SW 8th St, Ste 2590 Miami, FL 33130 service@propertypeoplelaw.com Complainant: Yosvany Camacho Palacio Insured: Yosvany Camacho Palacio Claim No: 202411017745 Policy No: 04650138 CRN Filing No.: 800541 Dear Daniel Ilani: Please allow this correspondence to serve as Slide Insurance Company’s (“Slide”)’s response to the Civil Remedy Notice (“CRN”) filed on behalf of Yosvany Camacho Palacio (“Insured”). The CRN was accepted by the Department on January 13, 2025. Without waiving any objections to the sufficiency of this CRN, and specifically subject to a reservation of all rights and defenses herein, Slide denies it violated any Florida Statutes, codes, rules, or provisions in the applicable policy of insurance in its handling of this matter. Slide challenges the validity of the CRN as it fails to allege specific facts to support any breach of the policy of insurance or violations of Florida Statute, nor does the Complainant identify any individuals at the insurer with knowledge of the purported conduct. See, e.g., Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So.3d 875, 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021); Demase v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company, 351 So.3d 136, 138-39 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022) (holding the trial court properly determined a civil remedy notice that failed to state with specificity the relevant policy language was legally insufficient). Therefore, the CRN fails to comply with the statutory requirements and is materially deficient. CLAIM FACTS Slide acquired a homeowners’ insurance policy from Citizens’ Property Insurance Corporation issued to the Insured for property located at 4701 4th Street W, Lehigh Acres, Florida, in effect from the date of assumption on January 23, 2024 through January 14, 2025, (the “Policy”). On November 13, 2024, a representative from Extreme Adjusting Services, Inc. (“Public Adjuster”), filed a claim on the Insured’s behalf for damage to the Insured’s property from Hurricane Milton. The date of loss was reported as October 9, 2024. Slide acknowledged receipt of the claim and assigned a licensed field adjuster to inspect the property. The field adjuster met with the Insured’s Public Adjuster Jeffrey Zapparolli for the inspection on November 18, 2024. During the inspection, the Public Adjuster told the field adjuster the Insured had already made repairs to the shingles and flashing allegedly damaged by the loss. The field adjuster noted dents to the gutters on the front elevation, tears in the screened enclosure located on the rear of the dwelling, and staining on the ceiling of the patio, entryway, and dining room. Inspection of the roof revealed approximately ten (10) torn and / or creased shingles along with prior repairs to the shingles and flashing. No other damages were reported or observed. In a letter dated November 20, 2024, the Insured was advised the claim was covered. The total cost to repair the covered damages was less than the Policy’s hurricane deductible; therefore, no payment was due or owing pursuant to the Loss Settlement provisions of the Policy. An estimate itemizing the covered damages was emailed to the Insured along with a written explanation of the coverage decision. After issuing the claim payment, Slide did not receive any further communication from the Insured or their representatives until on or about December 30, 2024, upon receipt of an estimate from the Insured’s Public Adjuster on their behalf. The estimate, prepared by the Insured’s Public Adjuster, asserted damages of $75,231.41 as a result of the reported loss, including a full roof replacement. In response, Slide acknowledged receipt of the supplemental materials and reopened the claim. On January 9, 2025, the desk adjuster assigned to the claim spoke with the Insured’s Public Adjuster regarding the submitted estimate and settlement of the claim. No further correspondence was received until receipt of this CRN on January 13, 2025. Therefore, the assertion in the CRN that Slide ignored the Insured’s estimate or failed to make attempts to resolve the dispute is without merit. Rather, the Insured filed the instant CRN and a Property Insurance Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation less than two (2) weeks after the Insured first notified Slide of the supplemental damages they were claiming. To date, neither the Insured nor their representatives have provided any information that would alter Slide’s understanding of the loss and coverage. Slide maintains that it has acted in accordance with the terms of the subject insurance policy and the law in its adjustment of the claim. The facts and circumstances set forth in the CRN are incomplete, misleading, and do not support the allegations of claim delay, claim denial, unfair trade practice, unsatisfactory settlement offer, or any other violations of Florida law. The facts show Slide promptly investigated the loss, made communications as necessary to adjust the claim, and notified the Insured and/or their representatives of the coverage decision and relevant policy provisions pursuant to its obligations under Florida law and the Policy. The Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances to the contrary. ALLEGED STATUTORY VIOLATIONS The CRN alleges Slide violated §§ 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(2), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(2), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h), and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i), Fla. Stats. Notwithstanding the position that the CRN is legally insufficient, Slide denies all allegations that it violated Florida law in the handling of the subject claim. As provided in the above narrative, the underlying claim was investigated and adjusted in as thorough and expedient a manner as possible. Following the evaluation of the loss, the Insured was notified of the coverage decision and assessment of damages pursuant to the Policy’s terms, conditions, endorsements, limitations, and exclusions. The Complainant’s allegations that the company misrepresented material facts or policy provisions and failed to properly or fully communicate with the Insured are unsupported by the documented circumstances of the claim. In fact, no specific instances of the purported conduct are provided in the CRN. The facts show Slide has consistently acted promptly upon all communications with respect to this claim, communicated with the Insured and/or their representatives regarding the supplemental claims asserted by the Insured and/or their representatives, conducted a reasonable investigation of the reported loss, and provided a written explanation of the coverage decisions and any information needed for investigation of additional claims as they were received. The documented facts will show that all actions taken by Slide have been in accordance with the Policy and Florida law. Thus, Slide maintains that it has acted fairly and honestly towards the Insured. CONCLUSION In filing this response, Slide does not intend to waive any rights or defenses afforded under the applicable insurance policy and Florida law; rather, all such rights or defenses are hereby explicitly reserved, without exception or limitation. Should there be any questions or further inquiry with respect to this matter, please contact the undersigned at mthornton@slideinsurance.com. Sincerely, /s/ Marianne Thornton Marianne Thornton, 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