Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     800938
Filing Accepted:  1/14/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
GUARINO   First Name   DOMINIC & TAMZAN
Street Address * 10 GLOXINIAS CT.
City, State Zip * HOMOSASSA, FL 34446
Email Address * DGUARINO44@GMAIL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   GUARINO   First Name   DOMINIC & TAMZAN
Policy # * FL10556000 Claim #* 65429
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* NIPPS First Name * ROBERT Initial L
Street Address* 203 FORT WADE RD. SUITE 260
City, State Zip* PONTE VEDRA , FL 32081
Email Address * RNIPPS@WOOLSEYMORCOM.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   SAFEPOINT INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 15341
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* NICHOLAS MARTINELLI (FL. ADJ. #W619951)
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
Unfair Trade Practice
Other : Wrongful claim denial
Other : Unfair claim settlement practices Unreasonable investigation
Other : Unreasonable investigation
Other : Failure to act on claim
Other : Failure to conduct a reasonable investigation based on available information
Other : Failure to maintain proper complaint handling procedures
Other : Misrepresenting the insurance policy provisions to the insured
Other : Misrepresenting Florida statutory provisions to the insured
Other : Misrepresenting facts to the insured
Other : Failure to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims
Other : Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information
Other : Failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and, as to partial coverage, the dolla
Other : Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of the basis in the i
Other : Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of
Other : Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such informat
Other : Failing to pay undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed under first-party property insura
* 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)(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)(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 – PERILS INSURED AGAINST Coverage A – Dwelling Protection And Coverage B – Other Structures 1. We insure against direct loss to the covered property described in Coverages A and B only if that loss is a physical loss to property. **** Coverage C – Personal Property We insure for direct physical loss to the covered property described in Coverage C caused by a peril listed below unless the loss is excluded in SECTION I – EXCLUSIONS. 1. Fire or lightning. 2. Windstorm or hail. **** Coverage D – Loss Of Use Protection The limit of liability for Coverage D is the total limit for all the coverages in 1. Additional Living Expense, 2. Fair Rental Value and 3.Civil Authority Prohibits Use below. 1. Additional Living Expense. If a loss covered under SECTION I makes that part of the "residence premises" where you not fit to live in, we cover any necessary increase in living expenses incurred by you so that your household can maintain its normal standard of living. Payment will be for the shortest time required to: a. Repair or replace the damage; or b. If you permanently relocate, the shortest time required for your household to settle elsewhere. In either event, the payment(s) will be limited to 24 consecutive months from the date of the covered loss. 2. Fair Rental Value. If a loss covered under SECTION I makes that part of the "residence premises" rented to others or held for rental by you not fit to live in, we cover the fair rental value of that part of the "residence premises” rented to others or held for rental by you minus any expenses that do not continue while the premises is not fit to live in. However, we do not cover any fair rental value arising out of or in connection with “home sharing host activities”. Payment will be for the shortest time required to repair or replace that part of the premises rented or help for rental. In either event, the payment(s) will be limited to 24 consecutive months from the date of the covered loss. 3. Civil Authority Prohibits Use. If a civil authority prohibits you from use of the “residence remises” as a result of direct damage to neighboring premises by a Peril Insured Against in this Policy, for the period of time the civil authority prevents use of the “residence premises”, we cover the Additional Living Expense and Fair Rental Value loss as provided in 1. Additional Living Expense and 2. Fair Rental Value above for no more than 2 weeks. R, we cover the Additional Living Expense or Fair Rental Value loss as provided under 1. And 2. Above for not more than two weeks. **** SECTION G – OTHER COVERAGES 1. Debris Removal a. We will pay your reasonable expense you incur for the removal of: (1) Debris of covered property if a Peril Insured Against that applies to the damaged property causes the loss; or (2) Ash, dust or particles from a volcanic eruption that has caused direct loss to a building or property contained in a building. This expense is included in the limit of liability that applies to the damaged property. If the amount to be paid for the actual damage to the property plus the debris removal expense is more than the limit of liability for the damaged property, an additional 5% of that limit of liability is available for debris removal expense. Debris Removal expense under G.1 above does not increase the $10,000 limit on coverage under paragraphs A.3 and A.6 in SECTION I – PERILS INSRUED AGAINST A. Coverage A – Dwelling And Coverage B – Other Structures. Any payment for Debris Removal expense G.1 will be deducted from the $10,000 limit on coverage under paragraphs A.3 and Am6 in SECTION I – PERILS INSURED AGAINST A. Coverage A – Dwelling And Coverage B – Other Structures. b. We will also pay your reasonable expense you incur, up to $1,500, for the removal rom the :residence premises:” of: (1) Your tree(s) felled by the peril of windstorm or hail, or weight of ice, snow or sleet; or (2) A neighbor’s tree(s)felled by a Peril Insured Against under coverage C; provided the tree(s): (1) damage a covered structure; or (2) do not damage a covered structure, but: (a) Blocks a driveway on the "residence premises" which prevents a "motor vehicle" that is registered for use on public roads or property, from entering or leaving the “residence premises”; or (b) Block a ramp or other fixture designed to assist a handicapped person to enter or leave the dwelling building. The $1,500 limit is the most we will pay in any one loss regardless of the number of fallen trees. No more than $1,000 of this limit will be paid for the removal of any one tree. This coverage is additional insurance. **** Also refer to: Coverage A provision, coverage B provision, coverage C provision, coverage D provision, all additional coverages provisions, all coverages provided by endorsement or rider, the declarations page, loss payment or settlement provision, duties in event of loss policy provision, all terms and conditions of section I of the insurance policy, the insurance policy definitions section, the insurance policy‘s exclusion of coverage provisions, all insurance policy provisions that provide coverage to the insured property, and all policy provisions.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

SafePoint Insurance (“SafePoint”) has committed the following in handling the insured’s claim: 1) failure to pay benefits owed; 2) failure to act in due diligence and good faith to resolve claims; 3) placing the financial interest of the insurer before that of the policy holder and claimant; 4) failure to properly train, evaluate, and manage adjusters retained to represent the policies and procedures of SafePoint; 5) looking for ways to delay benefit payments and otherwise “low ball” or “stone wall” claims; 6) looking for ways to deny the insured’s claim; 7) looking for ways to reduce recovery to the insured; 8) failure to perform a reasonable investigation; 9) misrepresenting Florida statutory provisions to its insured; 10) misrepresenting insurance policy provisions to the insured; 11) SafePoint has failed and refused to acknowledge coverage and promptly pay the benefits due and owed to the insured; 12) the reasons for this may be attributed to improper training, supervision, and/or motivation of outside adjusters and claims supervisors to promptly and fairly adjust and pay full benefits available to the insured. The insurer may have failed to adopt proper standards of investigation and adjustment of losses or is otherwise not implementing those standards because a proper investigation and full and prompt payment for the loss is not occurring. In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. SafePoint has breached this duty by its adjustment of the insureds’ claim of loss. SafePoint has failed to create and implement adequate guidelines for proper investigation to evaluate claims handling and for training and supervision of employees resulting in violations as set forth above. SafePoint has failed and/or refused to thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigate and evaluate the insureds’ insurance claim for damages. Despite the insureds’ timely notification to SafePoint of the insurance claim, SafePoint has failed and refused to acknowledge the covered loss and pay all amounts due and owing to the insured under the policy of insurance. SafePoint has failed to promptly settle the insureds’ insurance claim, when the obligation to settle the claim had become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance, in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage. Despite the insureds’ pleas otherwise, SafePoint has failed and refused to acknowledge its obligation to tender all insurance proceed monies due and owing the insured or assist the insured in mitigation of the damages. In exchange for a premium paid by the insured, SafePoint issued the subject insurance policy which provided coverage for the insured property from July 30, 2023 to July 30, 2024 direct, physical loss to tangible property described in SECTION I – PERILS INSURED AGAINST. As such, the subject all-risk Policy contains coverage for all direct physical losses to the insured property unless the loss is specifically and unambiguously excluded from coverage by the Policy. On or about February 4, 2024, the insured property suffered a hail loss, and the insured immediately submitted a claim to SafePoint for property damage, i.e., hail damage to the roof system. Hence, the Insureds suffered a substantial loss regarding the real property and continue to suffer such loss. Having suffered such substantial damage, the insured promptly notified SafePoint of the loss in an effort to mitigate the current damage and prevent the exacerbation of any additional losses. The desired result did not follow. SafePoint, since being presented the Insured’s claim, has misrepresented policy provisions to avoid paying the insured what they are owed under the policy. Ultimately, SafePoint has failed and refused to properly settle the Insured’s claim in good faith. The Insured has requested that SafePoint conduct an investigation, admit coverage, and pay damages; SafePoint has failed and refused to do so. In short, SafePoint has failed to handle its Insured’s claim in good faith in violation of Fla. Stat. 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3), and 626.9541(1)(i). Based upon SafePoint’s investigation and property inspection, SafePoint’s adjuster sent correspondence to the Insured dated September 13, 2024, (signed by SafePoint’s claims adjuster, Nicholas Martinelli (FL. Adj. #W619951) denying coverage on the Insured’s claim. In regard to insurance contracts, a specific refusal to pay a claim is the breach which triggers the cause of action. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d 885, 892 (Fla. 2003); Donovan v. AIIC Fire and Cas. Co., 574 So. 2d 285, 286 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1991) (finding that a breach of contract takes place at the moment the insurance company refuses to pay a claim). Therefore, SafePoint breached the Policy. Moreover, SafePoint’s argued exclusions and/or limitations to coverage are devoid of anti-concurrent causation language. Thus, “coverage may exist where an insured risk constitutes a concurrent cause of the loss even when it is not the prime or efficient cause.” Sebo v. Am. Home Assurance Co., Inc., 208 So. 3d 694, 699 (Fla. 2016). In addition, under the Policy, any ensuing loss to property not excluded or excepted in this policy is covered. Hence, there are a myriad of coverages under the Policy that would provide coverage for the loss. Nevertheless, SafePoint failed and refused to acknowledge the full extent of covered loss and pay all amounts due and owing for the loss. Therefore, SafePoint breached the Policy. Questioning the propriety of SafePoint’s partial coverage denial, and given the extensive nature of the physical damage, the Insured retained a loss consultant, Coastal Claims Services LLC (“Coastal”), to perform an investigation and damage evaluation in accordance with industry standards and Florida law. Based on its investigation, Coastal determined that a hurricane on or about September 26, 2024, caused damage to the exterior and interior of the insured property. Moreover, Coastal determined that at least $57,650.86 worth of repairs would be required to return the property to its pre-loss condition as a result of the hail loss. Nevertheless, SafePoint failed and refused to acknowledge the full extent of the covered loss and pay all amounts due and owing under the Policy. Therefore, SafePoint breached the Policy through its continued failure to acknowledge the covered loss and pay all amounts due and owing under the Policy. Further, questioning the propriety of SafePoint’s continued coverage determination, and given the extensive nature of the physical damage, the insured retained a consulting licensed contractor, Tom Gannon with LSC Construction Consultants, LLC (“LSC”), to perform an investigation and damage evaluation in accordance with industry standards and Florida law. Based on his investigation, Mr. Gannon likewise concluded that a hailstorm on or about February 2, 2024, caused damage to the exterior of the insured property (particularly the roof warranting replacement). Moreover, Mr. Gannon determined that at least $51,784.05 (dwelling) worth of repairs would be required to return the property to its pre-loss condition as a result of the hail loss. As such, SafePoint’s coverage determination is a blatant misrepresentation of the available coverages under the Policy in direct violation of Fla. Stats. 626.9541(1)(a)(1), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(a)(1), and 626.9541(1)(i)(2) and is nothing more than a mere pretext to wrongfully delay this claim. As a result, SafePoint has materially misrepresented the coverages under the subject policy to the Insured for the purpose and with the intent of effecting settlement of the Insured’s claim on less favorable terms than those provided in, and contemplated by, the subject policy in direct violation of Fla. Stat. § 626.9541(1)(i)(2). Further, SafePoint is in violation of Florida statutes §§ 626.9541(1)(a)(1), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), and 626.9541(1)(a)(1) by misrepresenting pertinent facts and insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue; and also in violation of Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) by refusing to cover the full loss of the Insured’s claim without conducting a reasonable investigation based upon available information. In summary, the Insured’s loss is clearly covered by the terms of the policy of insurance with SafePoint. However, SafePoint chose to open coverage for the Insured’s loss, but only for a mere fraction of the actual damage sustained by the insured property. To date, SafePoint continues to deny the Insureds full indemnity for the claim. While SafePoint refuses to honor this claim, a jury in Citrus County will likely do what SafePoint has refused; exercise the benefit of doubt in favor of the Insureds in finding full coverage for this loss. Indeed, the Insured will undoubtedly meet the burden of proof at trial, under the SafePoint all-risk policy, to show that, while SafePoint provided insurance coverage, damage occurred to the insured property. See Jones v. Federated Nat'l Ins. Co., 235 So. 3d 936, 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). With the data presented within SafePoint’s investigation and Coastal Claim and LSC’s investigation, SafePoint’s burden to demonstrate by the greater weight of the evidence that all the physical damage to the insured property was caused solely by excluded perils under the policy and not in combination with a covered peril has not and cannot be met. See Sebo v. Am. Home Assurance Co., Inc., 208 So. 3d 694 (Fla. 2016). Despite clear indicators of covered damage, SafePoint nevertheless refused to provide coverage for the total loss of the Insureds’ claim. As of today, SafePoint has failed and refused to inform the Insured of his rights under the policy of insurance and Florida statutes, has improperly delayed the Insured’s claim, and has failed and refused to adequately indemnify the Insureds for the loss and defiantly continues to do so. Indeed, from the time of receiving the claim, SafePoint has purposely and maliciously delayed in adjusting the subject claim in an effort to either avoid paying the claim altogether or, at the very least, avoid paying the full extent of the loss. Notably, under Florida law, “[t]he filing of a lawsuit does not extinguish the insurer’s obligations under the policy to adjust and pay the claim.” Tristar Lodging, Inc. V. Arch Specialty Ins. Co., 434 F. Supp. 2d 1286, 1289 (M.D. Fla. 2006). To date, the Insured has made a good faith effort to comply with all of the requirements under the subject policy of insurance, and it is only fair that SafePoint do the same. Yet, that is not the case. The Insured feels that the insured property is a valuable asset, and, by continuously delaying the proper handling of this claim, SafePoint is putting the insured property at risk. As a responsible property owner, the Insureds purchased insurance to protect the property, paid all of the premiums, and have kept up to date with the responsibilities under the policy. Yet, when the Insured needed to rely on the insurance because of this unforeseen loss, SafePoint turned its back and delayed coverage that the Insured is rightfully owed. Ultimately, SafePoint has failed and refused to properly investigate the loss. The Insureds have requested that SafePoint admit coverage, which it has, but refuses to fully indemnify the Insureds for the loss and pay the amounts necessary to properly repair the Insureds’ property, despite knowing it is required to do so. In short, SafePoint has failed to handle its Insureds’ claim in good faith. In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust; SafePoint has breached this duty by its insufficient adjustment of the Insureds’ claim. SafePoint has failed to create and implement adequate guidelines for proper investigation to evaluate claims handling and for training and supervision of employees resulting in statutory violations set forth above. SafePoint has failed and/or refused to thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigate and evaluate the Insureds’ insurance claim for damages. Florida statute § 624.02 defines insurance as a contract whereby one undertakes to indemnify another or pay or allow a specified amount or a determinable benefit upon determinable contingencies. Inherent is the fact that payment must be made timely and promptly so that the insured may mitigate their damages to put them back into the position they were prior to loss as quickly as possible. SafePoint breached this duty. The actions taken by SafePoint in the handling / adjustment of the Insured’s claim were willful, wanton, and with complete disregard for the rights of its insured and occur with such a frequency as to indicate a general business practice and are in violation of Fla. Stat. 624.155 and 626.9541. SafePoint’s actions amount to but are not limited to the following: 1. Claim delay 2. Wrongful claim denial 3. Unfair trade practice 4. Unfair claim settlement practices 5. Unreasonable investigation 6. Failure to act on claim 7. Failure to conduct a reasonable investigation based on available information 8. Failure to maintain proper complaint handling procedures 9. Misrepresenting the insurance policy provisions to the insured 10. Misrepresenting Florida statutory provisions to the insured 11. Misrepresenting facts to the insured 12. Failure to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims 13. Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim. 17. Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary. 18. Failing to pay undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed under first-party property insurance policies within 90 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 an act of God, prevented by the impossibility of performance, or due to actions by the insured or claimant that constitute fraud, lack of cooperation, or intentional misrepresentation regarding the claim for which benefits are owed. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this civil remedy notice, SafePoint must: (1): Admit full coverage for the insured’s loss; (2): Tender all insurance monies due and owing to the insured for the loss under the subject Policy; A copy of this form submitted to the FDFS has been emailed and/or uploaded and also printed out and mailed to the following parties providing them notice of the filing of this civil remedy notice: SafePoint Insurance 12640 Telecom Drive Tampa, Florida 33637
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
mbakas@safepointins.com 03-14-2025 March 14, 2025 VIA EMAIL: RNIPPS@WOOLSEYMORCOM.COM Robert L. Nipps, Esq. 203 Fort Wade Road, Suite 260 Ponte Vedra, FL 32081 RE: Insured: Dominic & Tamzan Guarino Claim Number: 65429 Policy: FL10556000 Date of Loss: 2/4/24 CRN Filing Number: 800938 Dear Sir/Madam: This is the formal response of SafePoint Insurance Company (“SafePoint”) to the purported Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (“Purported Notice”) that was filed on behalf of Dominic & Tamzan Guarino (“Insured” / “Complainant”). The Florida Department of Financial Services accepted the Purported Notice, in form only, on January 14, 2025. The Purported Notice was filed in connection with Insureds’ insurance claim for property damage. The Purported Notice names SafePoint and “Claim Delay,” “Unfair Trade Practice,” “Wrongful claim denial,” “Unfair claim settlement practices Unreasonable investigation,” “Unreasonable investigation,” “Failure to act on claim,” “Failure to conduct a reasonable investigation based on available information,” “Failure to maintain proper complaint handling procedures,” “Misrepresenting the insurance policy provisions to the insured,” “Misrepresenting Florida statutory provisions to the insured,” “Misrepresenting facts to the insured,” “Failure to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims,” “Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information,” “Failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and, as to partial coverage, the dolla [sic]” “Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of the basis in the I [sic]” Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of,” “Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such informat[sic]” “Failing to pay undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed under first-party property insura[sic]”, supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3) and 626.9541(1)(i)(2); 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a); (b); (c); (d); (e); (f); (g); (h), and 626.9541(1)(i)(4), Florida Statutes. The Purported Notice is a legal nullity for the reasons discussed below. ^ ^1 SafePoint reserves all (and waives none) of its rights or defenses, including its right to assert additional deficiencies in the Purported Notice. Under Section 624.155(3), Florida Statutes, a claimant must file a notice with the Florida Department of Financial Services (“the Department”) at least 60 days before filing a Statutory “bad faith” lawsuit. This notice is commonly referred to as a “civil remedy notice” (“CRN”). Section 624.155(3), Florida Statutes sets out five pieces of information which must be included in a CRN: 1. The statutory provision, including the specific language of the statute, which the authorized insurer allegedly violated; 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation; 3. The name of any individual involved in the violation; 4. Reference to specific policy language that is relevant to the violation, if any. If the person bringing the civil action is a third party claimant, she or he shall not be required to reference the specific policy language if the authorized insurer has not provided a copy of the policy to the third party claimant pursuant to written request; and 5. A statement that the notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section. The statute also provides that, in addition to these five requirements, the CRN shall be “on a form provided by the [Department] and shall state with specificity . . . such other information as the department may require.” (emphasis added). The Florida Supreme Court has held that Section 624.155, Florida Statutes “must be strictly construed.” Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1283 (Fla. 2000). Strict construction is appropriate as “this statute is in derogation of the common law.” Id. When interpreting a statute in derogation of the common law, “[a] court will presume that such a statute was not intended to alter the common law other than as clearly and plainly specified in the statute.” Time Ins. Co., Inc. v. Burger, 712 So. 2d 389, 393 (Fla. 1998). Accordingly, such an interpretation would mean that statutory bad faith cases cannot proceed unless the claimant has specifically complied will all statutory requirements. After the promulgation of this statute, the Department created a CRN form: Form DFS-10- 363. Form DFS-10-363 lays out 15 requirements: 1. Complainants Name; 2. Complainants Address; 3. Complainants E-mail address; 4. Complainant type (Insured or otherwise); 5. Insured’s Name; 6. Insurance Policy Number; 7. Insurance Claim Number; 8. Attorney’s Name; 9. Attorney’s Address; 10. Attorney’s E-mail Address; 11. Type of Insurer (authorized or otherwise); 12. Name of Insurer; 13. Address of Insurer; 14. Type of Insurance (Commercial Property & Casualty or otherwise); and 15. Reason for Notice. As these requirements are all information required by the Department, according to Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, they each must be stated with specificity. The Purported Notice fails to meet the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 624.155 on the following grounds: Deficiency #1 Section 624.155(3)(b)(4), Florida Statutes, requires the CRN to reference specific policy language that is relevant to the violation, if any. If the person bringing the civil action is a third- party claimant, she or he shall not be required to reference the specific policy language if the authorized insurer has not provided a copy of the policy to the third-party claimant pursuant to written request. The Complainant is the Insured and not a third-party claimant; therefore, the Purported Notice must include specific language from the subject policy that is relevant to the alleged violations. It does not. Rather, the Purported Notice provides vague language and lists multiple Policy sections, including the statement “Coverage A provision, coverage B provision, coverage C provision, coverage D provision, all additional coverages provisions, all coverages provided by endorsement or rider, the declarations page, loss payment or settlement provision, duties in event of loss policy provision, all terms and conditions of section I of the insurance policy, the insurance policy definitions section, the insurance policy‘s exclusion of coverage provisions, all insurance policy provisions that provide coverage to the insured property, and all policy provisions.” General, vague and overbroad references to policy provisions does not satisfy the specificity required by § 624.155(3)(b)(4), Fla. Stat. As such, the Purported Notice is deficient as a matter of law. This deficiency applies to all allegations in the Purported Notice, including but not limited to “Claim Delay,” “Unfair Trade Practice,” “Wrongful claim denial,” “Unfair claim settlement practices Unreasonable investigation,” “Unreasonable investigation,” “Failure to act on claim,” “Failure to conduct a reasonable investigation based on available information,” “Failure to maintain proper complaint handling procedures,” “Misrepresenting the insurance policy provisions to the insured,” “Misrepresenting Florida statutory provisions to the insured,” “Misrepresenting facts to the insured,” “Failure to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims,” “Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information,” “Failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and, as to partial coverage, the dolla [sic]” “Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of the basis in the I [sic]” Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of,” “Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such informat[sic]” “Failing to pay undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed under first-party property insura[sic]”, supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3) and 626.9541(1)(i)(2); 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a); (b); (c); (d); (e); (f); (g); (h), and 626.9541(1)(i)(4), Florida Statutes. On March 3, 2021, the Fourth District Court of Appeal issued a relevant opinion in Junior Julien v. United Property and Casualty Insurance Company, No. 4D19-2763. In Julien, the insured appealed the circuit court’s dismissal of his lawsuit against his insurer, finding that the insured’s Civil Remedy Notice (“CRN”) failed to satisfy the statutory requirement that an insured “state with specificity” the policy language and the statutory provisions at issue. In his CRN, the insured cited numerous statutory provisions and listed nearly every provision in the insurance policy. On appeal, the Fourth District affirmed the dismissal and agreed with the circuit court that the CRN failed to specify the statutory and policy provisions at issue. Like the CRN in Julien, the Purported Notice fails to “state with specificity” the policy language at issue. Deficiency #2 Section 624.155(3)(b)(2), Florida Statutes, requires that the CRN state with specificity the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation. The Purported Notice does not supply specific facts or circumstances that explain the allegations. Rather, the Purported Notice asserts general allegations consisting of false, conclusory and inaccurate statements rather than specific allegations of fact regarding any alleged misconduct or statutory violations and fails to explain how the purported facts constitute violations of Florida law. For example, the Purported Notice states, “On or about February 4, 2024, the insured property suffered a hail loss, and the insured immediately submitted a claim to SafePoint for property damage…” However, these statements are conclusory, inaccurate and without factual basis. This is a claim for roof damage that was late reported by claimants Public Adjuster, Coastal Claims on August 15, 2024, one hundred and ninety-three (193) days after the alleged date of loss, February 4, 2024. On August 22, 2024, SafePoint inspected the subject property and documented any visible damage. It was noted the inspection did not reveal any damage to the roofing system attributable to hail. Furthermore, there was not any water damage to the interior of the home. The Policy does not provide coverage for wear and tear, deterioration, mechanical breakdown, decay, corrosion, improper installation, improper and/or deferred maintenance, nor does it cover damage that occurred prior to the assumption of the Policy. As such, on September 13, 2024, contrary to the Purported Notice erroneous assertion, “However, SafePoint chose to open coverage for the loss, but only for a mere fraction of the actual damage sustained by the insured property[.]” coverage was not opened, rather it was denied and the Complainant was notified in writing and provided a detailed explanation as to why there was not a covered peril under the Policy. Further, the Purported Notice makes boilerplate recitations of statutes and conclusory statements without the requisite specificity. Specificity is of particular importance for this Purported Notice as Complainant generally alleges that SafePoint “[m]isrepresent[ed] pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to the coverages at issue.” However, the Purported Notice does not set forth any facts regarding any misrepresentations made by SafePoint and does not identify the person or persons who made such misrepresentations. It is evident that the statement of facts falls short of the specificity required by Fla. Stat. §624.155. This deficiency applies to all allegations in the Purported Notice, including but not limited to “Claim Delay,” “Unfair Trade Practice,” “Wrongful claim denial,” “Unfair claim settlement practices Unreasonable investigation,” “Unreasonable investigation,” “Failure to act on claim,” “Failure to conduct a reasonable investigation based on available information,” “Failure to maintain proper complaint handling procedures,” “Misrepresenting the insurance policy provisions to the insured,” “Misrepresenting Florida statutory provisions to the insured,” “Misrepresenting facts to the insured,” “Failure to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims,” “Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information,” “Failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and, as to partial coverage, the dolla [sic]” “Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of the basis in the I [sic]” Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of,” “Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such informat[sic]” “Failing to pay undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed under first-party property insura[sic]”, supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3) and 626.9541(1)(i)(2); 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a); (b); (c); (d); (e); (f); (g); (h), and 626.9541(1)(i)(4), Florida Statutes. STATUTORY ALLEGATIONS 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. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 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. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 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. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b): Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c): Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d): Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 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. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 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. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g): Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h): Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 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). SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. The allegations set forth in the Purported Notice are denied as they are mere conclusory allegations unsupported by facts, devoid of logic and intended solely to tarnish SafePoint’s name and reputation. SafePoint has at all times, acted fairly, honestly and in good faith in its dealings with the Complainant. While an insurance carrier is required to settle claims that should be settled, it is not required to settle claims that are legitimately contested. SafePoint unequivocally denies each and every allegation asserted in the Purported Notice. At no time has SafePoint breached any duty to the Complainant. AN INSURER IS NOT REQUIRED TO PAY WHATEVER AMOUNT THE INSURED DEMANDS. Finally, SafePoint retained a field adjuster and conducted an inspection of the subject property to investigate the Insured’s claim. Thereafter, Safepoint made a coverage decision pursuant to all applicable policy language and statutes. Please be advised, by this letter, SafePoint neither waives, nor is estopped, from asserting any and all rights it may have in law, or, under the terms of the policy. In fact, SafePoint hereby again, expressly, and specifically, reserves all of its rights, without exception or limitation. If you have any questions or concerns with this response, or, regarding any other matter, please contact me in writing. Sincerely, /s/ Ari Zeltzer Ari A. Zeltzer, Esq. Staff Counsel SafePoint Insurance Cc: Florida Department of Financial Services
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