Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     801513
Filing Accepted:  1/16/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
GINN   First Name   CINDY
Street Address * 3645 HAMPTON GLEN PLACE
City, State Zip * JACKSONVILLE, FL 32257
Email Address * CINDY.GINN@JAX.UFL.EDU
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   GINN   First Name   CINDY
Policy # * 80-00-1002-5 Claim #* 59-63G1-554
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* HEIL First Name * DAVID Initial
Street Address* 2324 LEE ROAD
City, State Zip* WINTER PARK , FL 32789
Email Address * DCAVID@HEIL-LAW.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10739
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* UNKNOWN
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
* 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.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information.
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.
* 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 Coverage A Dwelling We cover only the principal building used as a private residence
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

State Farm Florida Insurance Company refuses to pay the reasonable value of the loss. State Farm Florida Insurance Company has chosen to use a delay, deny and defend strategy in response to this claim instead of properly and fairly adjusting the claim. State Farm has refused to file an answer to the complaint in this matter, but has chosen to file a Motion for Extension of time to respond to the complaint for no reason but to further delay the resolution of this claim. State Farm has done this as a matter of course in virtually every case to further show that this is just a bad faith practice tactic to delay the resolution of claims. State Farm Florida has failed to set up appropriate standards and policies within the insurance company claims department to fairly adjust the claim in regard to its Cindy Ginn’s claim. State Farm Florida has failed to negotiate in good faith and make a reasonable settlement offer in regard to the amount of the loss. Cindy Ginn demands $32,893.18 to resolve this claim.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
nphawk@comcast.net 03-11-2025 ndence constitutes State Farm Florida Insurance Company’s (hereinafter “State Farm”) response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (hereinafter “Civil Remedy Notice” or “Notice”) filed with the Department of Financial Services on January 16, 2025, as filing number 801513, on behalf of Cindy Ginn (hereinafter “Insured”) regarding the above referenced claim. As an initial matter, State Farm would like to point out that the claim number listed on the Notice is incorrect which may affect State Farm’s ability to appropriately respond to the Notice. State Farm does not waive any prejudice which has arisen by the incorrect claim number. State Farm welcomes the opportunity to respond to this Civil Remedy Notice and specifically denies each and every allegation contained in the Civil Remedy Notice filed in relation to this claim. At all times during the handling of this claim, State Farm acted fairly and honestly toward its insured, fairly considered information in regard to the matters at hand and fully observed its contractual, statutory and administrative obligations. State Farm has carefully reviewed, considered, and evaluated the alleged violations charged and believes they are completely without merit. State Farm has fulfilled and is fulfilling its duties as provided under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Based on the foregoing, all allegations of wrong-doing, unfair trade practices, misrepresentations and a lack of good faith conduct in connection with the above claim are denied. [The] statute creating [a] cause of action against first-party insurer for bad-faith failure to settle needed to be strictly construed as in derogation of the common law. Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). A first-party bad faith claim is in derogation of the common law and mut be strictly construed. See e.g., Julien V United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCCA 2021); Demase v State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 351 Do. 3f 136, 140 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022) (J. Sasso, concurring specially). With that said, State Farm believes that the Civil Remedy Notice filed on your behalf fails to comply with the specific notice and information requirements set forth in Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations document provisions as set forth in Florida Statute 624.155 and Florida case law. State Farm maintains that the CRN fails to provide the identity of the persons who are most responsible for/knowledgeable of the facts giving rise to the allegations of the Notice, the policy language that is relevant to the alleged violations, fails to adequately describe the alleged violations, and fails to provide sufficient information to allow State Farm to correct (cure) the alleged violations. The CRN contains boilerplate conclusory allegations against State Farm which are simply not true. The Civil Remedy Notice is required to properly set forth specific policy language alleged to have been violated in accordance with Florida Statute 624.155. Without asserting the policy language that is relevant to the question of coverage, it cannot reasonably be asserted by Insured that coverage is owed under said Policy, or that any provision of said Policy has been violated. Here, this requirement has not been met. The errors here, serve as a technical defect as the Civil Remedy Notice fails to comply with Florida Statute 624.155’s specificity requirements. This failure to properly identify the policy language allegedly relevant to the purported violations prevents State Farm from addressing any issues regarding the policy and is another reason why it does not comply with Florida Statute 624.155. See Demase v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., No. 5D21-2078 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Nov. 14, 2022) (citing Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. CO., 311 So. 3d 875, 878 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (concluding that the Insured failed to comply with section 624.155’s specificity requirements when listing nearly all policy sections and thirty- statutory provisions, which the court determined to be “more than a technical defect,” resulting in rejection of the notice). The Civil Remedy Notice fails to properly set forth specific policy language alleged to have been violated in accordance with Florida Statute 624.155(3)(b)(4), and for this reason, the Civil Remedy Notice is insufficient as a matter of law. Moreover, the Civil Remedy Notice lacks the specificity as required by 624.155(3)(b), Fla. Stat. and contains false allegations and misrepresentations of fact. See Lopez v. Geico Casualty Co., 968 F. Supp. 2d 1202 (S.D. Fla. 2013) (dismissing the insured's bad faith action her against the insurer, because the insured filed her civil remedy notice against the insurer's related entity, not her insurer), and Sandalwood Estates Homeowner's Association v. Empire Indemnity Insurance Co., 665 F. Supp. 2d 1355 (S.D. Fla. 2009) (dismissing the insured's bad faith action against its insurer's parent company, because the insured filed its civil remedy notice against its insurer, not the insurer's parent company), See also Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (Insured's civil remedy notice to insurer failed to include specific information required to allege circumstances giving rise to insured's bad-faith claim regarding homeowner's insurance policy, where notice listed every statutory provision and every policy provision available to him as an insured. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 624.155.), and Fonollosa v Am. Integrity Ins. Co. of FL, 2021 Fla. Cir. Lexis 5 (11th Cir Ct., Miami-Dade Cty 2021) holding (the CRNs do not satisfy the requirements of section 624.155(3)(b) because they do not state with specificity the facts and circumstances giving rise the alleged violations, names of individuals involved, statutory provisions and specific language of the statutes allegedly violated, or the specific policy language relevant to the alleged violations. The failure to properly allege a violation in the Civil Remedy Notice is a failure to comply with 624.155, Florida Statute. "Because the statute is in derogation of the common law, [courts] strictly construe the statutory requirements." Julien v. United Property & Casualty Ins. Ca, No. 4D19-2763, 2020 WL 5652364 (Fla. 4th DCA Sept. 23, 2020) (citing Talat, 753 So. 2d at 1283). Courts strictly construe the notice requirements because "the CRN is designed to prevent insurers from playing a guessing game as to what, and how, to cure within the sixty-day window." King v. Gov't Employees Ins. Co., No. 8:10-CV- 977-T-30AEP, 2012 WL 4052271, (M.D. Fla. Sept.13, 2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). While the Civil Remedy Notice alleges misrepresentations of fact, none are actually recited within the facts and circumstances portion thereof. Conversely, a number of the allegations contained within the Civil Remedy Notice are included within every notice filed by the included counsel. It is clear that the allegations are based upon a boilerplate, copy-and-paste template utilized across its first party practice and not specific to the instant claim. Thus, clearly the Notice utilized by Complainant is nothing more than a boilerplate document which fails to address the claim presented by Cindy Ginn. Moreover, the Civil Remedy Notice is completely devoid of any fact regarding State Farm’s claims investigation, but instead is replete with boilerplate and conclusory statements. Here, Complainant completely fails to provide any facts in support of his Civil Remedy Notice. Notwithstanding, the subject claim arises from a reported claim for roof damage allegedly caused by wind damage occurring on or about April 27, 2023, but not reported to State Farm until some 292 days later, on February 13, 2024, (by a contractor named Nikela). State Farm communicated with its Insured with a Request for Information on February 14, 2024. Thereafter, State Farm received an estimate and photos from Fortress Roofing on February 15, 2024. On February 15, 2024, a service vendor obtained photographs of the insured property on State Farm’s behalf. State Farm attempted to reach its Insured by phone on several occasions on March 12, 2024, until March 29, 2024. Thereafter, on March 29, 2024, State Farm issued its coverage determination letter to its Insured, explaining that: “[based] upon the results of our discussions, site inspection and investigation, it was determined there was no wind or hail to the roof or exterior of your home related to the weather event on April 27, 2023. The overall condition of your roof is consistent with progressive and cumulative wear, tear, deterioration, and weathering over time. Damage resulting from these cases of loss are not covered by your policy.” “While we did observe minor wind damage to some of the shingles on your roof, it was determined that this damage has weathered and predates the date of loss for this claim. As we were not provided immediate notice of the claim, you did not preserve the damaged property for our inspection and did not comply with the policy duties after loss provisions outlined below, our ability to investigate coverage and determine the amount of loss was impeded and prejudiced. As such, we are unable to extend any coverage for this loss. On July 25, 2024, State Farm received a letter of representation from the Insured’s Public Adjuster. Insured filed his Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation on October 1, 2024. State Farm acknowledged documents received from the Public Adjuster on October 9, 2024. State Farm timely responded to its Insured’s Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation on October 22, 2024. Thereafter, on November 8, 2024, suit was initiated in this matter which alleged a date of loss of August 3, 2023, not the same date of loss that was reported to Defendant. State Farm did not have an opportunity to investigate a loss allegedly occurring on August 3, 2023, did not issue a coverage determination for a loss allegedly occurring on August 3, 2023, and therefore could not have breach the policy as alleged by Ms. Ginn for a loss allegedly occurring on August 3, 2023. Notwithstanding, State Farm in good faith sought to investigate the allegations and discrepancies of Plaintiff’s Complaint and filed its Motion for Extension of Time to appropriately respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint. It conducted this inquiry with due diligence and timely filed its responsive pleading accordingly. Based upon the forgoing, State Farm timely issued its claim determination letter in accordance with the policy terms and conditions for the subject claim arising from a reported claim for roof damage occurring on or about April 27, 2023, but not reported to State Farm until some 292 days later, on February 13, 2024. Thus, the fact show that State Farm evaluated all information submitted to it and timely rendered its coverage determination. The purpose of a Civil Remedy Notice is to provide a carrier with one last opportunity to “cure” the alleged violations. However, the method “for curing the violations alleged in a civil remedy notice are not determined by the Insured. In Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 753 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 2000), the Florida Supreme Court accepted and quoted the reasoning of the court below in its opinion which stated in relevant part, as follows: 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. The law does not support such an expansive and illogical reading of Fla. Stat. Ann. §624.155(2)(d). . . . [t]o cure an alleged violation and to avoid a civil action, an insurer must pay the claim . . . before the sixty days expire. Talat, 753 So2d at 1282 citing Talat Enterprises Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 952 F.Supp. 773, 777-778 (M.D. Fla. 1996). The law does not support such an expansive and illogical reading of Fla. Stat. Ann. §624.155(2)(d). Talat, 753 So2d at 1282 citing Talat Enterprises Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 952 F.Supp. 773, 777- 778 (M.D. Fla. 1996). Because [the] statute creating cause of action against first party insurer for bad-faith failure to settle is in derogation of the common law, courts strictly construe the statutory requirements…the plain language of section 624.155(3)(b) instructs the policyholder to “state with specificity” information in the notice; to specify “language of the statute, which the authorized insurer allegedly violated;” and to “[r]eference ... specific policy language that is relevant to the violation, if any.” Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). The Notice When asked to the policy language that is relevant to the violation, the Notice merely states: “Section I Coverage A Dwelling We cover only the principal building used as a private residence.” Complainant’s Notice is so vague rendering it deficient, and so ambiguous that State Farm is left unable to investigate the issues raised within the Notice through the policy language reflected within the Notice. Notwithstanding, at all times, State Farm acted fairly and with due diligence both in its claim review actions, and toward the Insured and his representatives, throughout the claim. Reason for Notice Complainant, Cindy Ginn, lists “Claim Delay” as the reason for his Civil Remedy Notice. However, the Notice fails to provide any facts to support these reasons. In fact, the Notice is completely devoid of any fact(s) in support of the claim that State Farm engaged in an improper “Claim Denial.” Instead, the facts reveal, that the subject claim arises from a reported claim for roof damage allegedly caused by wind damage occurring on or about April 27, 2023, but not reported to State Farm until some 292 days later, on February 13, 2024, (by a contractor named Nikela). State Farm communicated with its Insured with a Request for Information on February 14, 2024. Thereafter, State Farm received an estimate and photos from Fortress Roofing on February 15, 2024. On February 15, 2024, a service vendor obtained photographs of the insured property on State Farm’s behalf. State Farm attempted to reach its Insured by phone on several occasions on March 12, 2024 until March 29, 2024. Thereafter, on March 29, 2024, State Farm issued its coverage determination letter to its Insured, explaining that: “[based] upon the results of our discussions, site inspection and investigation, it was determined there was no wind or hail to the roof or exterior of your home related to the weather event on April 27, 2023. The overall condition of your roof is consistent with progressive and cumulative wear, tear, deterioration, and weathering over time. Damage resulting from these cases of loss are not covered by your policy.” “While we did observe minor wind damage to some of the shingles on your roof, it was determined that this damage has weathered and predates the date of loss for this claim. As we were not provided immediate notice of the claim, you did not preserve the damaged property for our inspection and did not comply with the policy duties after loss provisions outlined below, our ability to investigate coverage and determine the amount of loss was impeded and prejudiced. As such, we are unable to extend any coverage for this loss. On July 25, 2024, State Farm received a letter of representation from the Insured’s Public Adjuster. The Insured filed her Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation on October 1, 2024. State Farm acknowledged documents received from the Public Adjuster on October 9, 2024. State Farm timely responded to its Insured’s Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation on October 22, 2024. Thereafter, on November 8, 2024, suit was initiated in this matter which alleged a date of loss of August 3, 2023, not the same date of loss that was reported to Defendant. State Farm did not have an opportunity to investigate a loss allegedly occurring on August 3, 2023, did not issue a coverage determination for a loss allegedly occurring on August 3, 2023, and therefore could not have breach the policy as alleged by Ms. Ginn for a loss allegedly occurring on August 3, 2023. Notwithstanding, State Farm in good faith sought to investigate the allegations and discrepancies of Plaintiff’s Complaint and filed its Motion for Extension of Time to appropriately respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint. It conducted this inquiry with due diligence and timely filed its responsive pleading accordingly. Based upon the forgoing, State Farm timely issued its claim determination letter in accordance with the policy terms and conditions for the subject claim arising from a reported claim for roof damage occurring on or April 27, 2023, but not reported to State Farm until some 292 days later, on February 13, 2024. Thus, the fact show that State Farm evaluated all information submitted to it and timely rendered its coverage determination. State Farm timely issued its claim determination letter, in accordance with the policy terms and the result of the inspection. State Farm evaluated all information submitted to it and timely rendered its coverage determination. Section 624.155 does not impose on an insurer the obligation to pay whatever the insured demands. Complainant’s Notice provides boilerplate, conclusory allegations that State Farm failed to pay based upon the Public Adjuster estimate. For this reason, the CRN is without basis, is false, is conclusory, and is denied. Based upon the foregoing, the Department of Financial Services should have rejected and returned the Civil Remedy Notice based upon these deficiencies and its insufficiency as a matter of law. State Farm’s response to the Civil Remedy Notice does not constitute a waiver of any argument of prejudice created by the defects therein. The documented facts clearly reflect that State Farm promptly responded to the Insured’s claim, performed a professional inspection of claimed damages, and timely advised the Insured of State Farm’s position on coverage. State Farm acted fairly and reasonably toward the Insured. Its handling of the claim was responsive to the Insured, and State Farm remained professional while seeking full and complete information in accordance with the specific terms of the insurance policy in considering whether coverage exists or payment was due. Specifically, the CRN alleges violation of: FS 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. State Farm denies violation of section 624.155(1)(b)(1), because it made a good faith effort to appropriately investigate and evaluate the Insured’s claim. State Farm has, at all times, acted in accordance with the terms, conditions, and coverages of the insurance policy. State Farm inspected the subject property, reviewed all documents and information provided to it during its investigation and advised of its evaluation and coverage determination in compliance with the policy. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting the Insured’s allegations have been set forth in the Notice. Thus, this allegation of a statutory violation is denied. The CRN fails to provide facts or information to support this alleged violation. FS 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Failing to adopt and implement standards for property investigation of claims. The facts show that State Farm promptly responded to the Insured’s claim and assigned representatives to inspect the subject property. State Farm then made a coverage determination in compliance with the policy. Accordingly, this allegation is not factually supported and is denied. The CRN fails to provide facts or information to support this alleged violation. FS 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c): Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. The facts show that State Farm promptly responded to the Insured’s claim and assigned representatives to inspect the subject property. State Farm then made a coverage determination in compliance with the policy. Accordingly, this allegation is not factually supported and is denied. The CRN fails to provide facts or information to support this alleged violation. FS 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d): Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information. The facts show that State Farm promptly responded to the Insured’s claim and assigned representatives to inspect the subject property. State Farm has, at all times, acted in accordance with the terms, conditions, and coverages of the insurance policy. State Farm inspected the subject property, reviewed all documents and information provided and advised of its evaluation and coverage determination in compliance with the policy. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting the Insured’s allegations have been set forth in the Notice. Thus, this allegation of a statutory violation is denied. The CRN fails to provide facts or information to support this alleged violation. FS 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. On March 29, 2024, State Farm issued its coverage determination letter which explained that based upon information reported to us during our investigation and the site inspection States Farm’s ability to determine when the damage to the roof occurred and the extent of damage had been compromised by the delay in reporting the claim to State Farm. Thus, this allegation of a statutory violation is denied. The CRN fails to provide facts or information to support this alleged violation. FS 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g): Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim. On March 29, 2024, State Farm issued its coverage determination letter which explained that based upon information reported to us during our investigation and the site inspection States Farm’s ability to determine when the damage to the roof occurred and the extent of damage had been compromised by the delay in reporting the claim to State Farm. Thus, this allegation of a statutory violation is denied. The CRN fails to provide facts or information to support this alleged violation. Instead, the facts reveal, Notwithstanding, the subject claim arises from a reported claim for roof damage allegedly caused by wind damage occurring on or about April 27, 2023, but not reported to State Farm until some 292 days later, on February 13, 2024, (by a contractor named Nikela). State Farm communicated with its Insured with a Request for Information on February 14, 2024. Thereafter, State Farm received an estimate and photos from Fortress Roofing on February 15, 2024. On February 15, 2024, a service vendor obtained photographs of the insured property on State Farm’s behalf. State Farm attempted to reach its Insured by phone on several occasions from March 12, 2024 until March 29, 2024. Thereafter, on March 29, 2024, State Farm issued its coverage determination letter to its Insured, explaining that: “[based] upon the results of our discussions, site inspection and investigation, it was determined there was no wind or hail to the roof or exterior of your home related to the weather event on April 27, 2023. The overall condition of your roof is consistent with progressive and cumulative wear, tear, deterioration, and weathering over time. Damage resulting from these cases of loss are not covered by your policy.” “While we did observe minor wind damage to some of the shingles on your roof, it was determined that this damage has weathered and predates the date of loss for this claim. As we were not provided immediate notice of the claim, you did not preserve the damaged property for our inspection and did not comply with the policy duties after loss provisions outlined below, our ability to investigate coverage and determine the amount of loss was impeded and prejudiced. As such, we are unable to extend any coverage for this loss. On July 25, 2024, State Farm received a letter of representation from the Insured’s Public Adjuster. Insured filed his Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation on October 1, 2024. State Farm acknowledged documents received from the Public Adjuster on October 9, 2024. State Farm timely responded to its Insured’s Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation on October 22, 2024. Thereafter, on November 8, 2024, suit was initiated in this matter which alleged a date of loss of August 3, 2023, not the same date of loss that was reported to Defendant. Notably, the Complaint filed in this matter alleges a date of loss of August 3, 2023, which is not the reported date of loss. State Farm did not have an opportunity to investigate a loss allegedly occurring on August 3, 2023, did not issue a coverage determination for a loss allegedly occurring on August 3, 2023, and therefore could not have breach the policy as alleged by Ms. Ginn for a loss allegedly occurring on August 3, 2023. Notwithstanding, State Farm in good faith sought to investigate the allegations and discrepancies of Plaintiff’s Complaint and filed its Motion for Extension of Time to appropriately respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint. It conducted this inquiry with due diligence and timely filed its responsive pleading accordingly. Based upon the forgoing, State Farm timely issued its claim determination letter in accordance with the policy terms and conditions for the subject claim arising from a reported claim for roof damage occurring on or about April 27, 2023, but not reported to State Farm until some 292 days later, on February 13, 2024. Thus, the fact show that State Farm evaluated all information submitted to it and timely rendered its coverage determination. It is important to note, that while an insurance company is required to settle claims that should be settled, it is not required to settle claims that are legitimately contested. Florida law continually affirms the principle that an insurer has the right to investigate claims presented for payment. An insurance company is expressly afforded an opportunity to evaluate its rights and liabilities. Neither the subject policy nor Florida law provide that a carrier must accept whatever demand for repairs it is provided by the Insured as the amount necessary to repair a loss. Therefore, this allegation is not factually supported and is denied. Alleged Policy Violations In reference to the specific policy language that is relevant to the violation, Complainants merely provide: “Section I Coverage A Dwelling We cover only the principal building used as a private residence.” The Notice does not properly show the policy LANGUAGE that State Farm allegedly violated. The language of the policy provision is so overbroad that State Farm is unable to know what policy language that it must address nor what policy language it purportedly violated. Instead, occurring on or about April 27, 2023, but not reported to State Farm until some 292 days later, on February 13, 2024, (by a contractor named Nikela). State Farm communicated with its Insured with a Request for Information on February 14, 2024. Thereafter, State Farm received an estimate and photos from Fortress Roofing on February 15, 2024. On February 15, 2024, a service vendor obtained photographs of the insured property on State Farm’s behalf. State Farm attempted to reach its Insured by phone on several occasions on March 12, 2024 until March 29, 2024. Thereafter, on March 29, 2024, State Farm issued its coverage determination letter to its Insured, explaining that: “[based] upon the results of our discussions, site inspection and investigation, it was determined there was no wind or hail to the roof or exterior of your home related to the weather event on April 27, 2023. The overall condition of your roof is consistent with progressive and cumulative wear, tear, deterioration, and weathering over time. Damage resulting from these cases of loss are not covered by your policy.” “While we did observe minor wind damage to some of the shingles on your roof, it was determined that this damage has weathered and predates the date of loss for this claim. As we were not provided immediate notice of the claim, you did not preserve the damaged property for our inspection and did not comply with the policy duties after loss provisions outlined below, our ability to investigate coverage and determine the amount of loss was impeded and prejudiced. As such, we are unable to extend any coverage for this loss. On July 25, 2024, State Farm received a letter of representation from the Insured’s Public Adjuster. The Insured filed her Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation on October 1, 2024. State Farm acknowledged documents received from the Public Adjuster on October 9, 2024. State Farm timely responded to its Insured’s Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation on October 22, 2024. Thereafter, on November 8, 2024, suit was initiated in this matter which alleged a date of loss of August 3, 2023, not the same date of loss that was reported to Defendant. This Civil Remedy Notice was filed on January 16, 2025. State Farm did not have an opportunity to investigate a loss allegedly occurring on August 3, 2023, did not issue a coverage determination for a loss allegedly occurring on August 3, 2023, and therefore could not have breach the policy as alleged by Ms. Ginn for a loss allegedly occurring on August 3, 2023. Notwithstanding, State Farm in good faith sought to investigate the allegations and discrepancies of Plaintiff’s Complaint and filed its Motion for Extension of Time to appropriately respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint. It conducted this inquiry with due diligence and timely filed its responsive pleading accordingly. Based upon the forgoing, State Farm timely issued its claim determination letter in accordance with the policy terms and conditions for the subject claim arising from a reported claim for roof damage occurring on or April 27, 2023, but not reported to State Farm until some 292 days later, on February 13, 2024. Thus, the fact show that State Farm evaluated all information submitted to it and timely rendered its coverage determination. The Cure Here Plaintiffs demand a cure of $32,752.64, in reliance upon the PA estimate. A civil remedy notice is “designed to be a cure period that will encourage payment of the underlying claim and avoid unnecessary bad faith litigation.” Demase v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 239 So. 3d 218, 221 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (quoting Talat Enters., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1282 (Fla. 2000). The Florida Supreme Court has explained the requirement to provide a valid cure: 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. The law does not support such an expansive and illogical reading of Fla. Stat. Ann. § 624.155(2)(d). Talat Enters., 753 So. 2d at 1282 (citing Talat Enters. Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 952 F. Supp. 773, 777-78 (M.D. Fla. 1996)). Here, the facts show that litigation was initiated against State Farm on November 8, 2024, alleging a date of loss of August 3, 2023, which is not the reported date of loss. State Farm did not have an opportunity to investigate a loss allegedly occurring on August 3, 2023, did not issue a coverage determination for a loss allegedly occurring on August 3, 2023, and therefore could not have breach the policy as alleged by Ms. Ginn for a loss allegedly occurring on August 3, 2023. This Civil Remedy Notice was filed after the initiation of litigation. In closing, State Farm first believes that the Civil Remedy Notice does not comply with Florida Statute 624.155, and regardless of the lack of the compliance, State Farm denies all allegations contained in the Civil Remedy Notice and submits there are no violations. State Farm handled the Insured’s claim with diligence and has, at all times, acted fairly in the adjustment of the claim and has treated the Insured with honesty and due regard to their interests, and State Farm has done so in compliance with the policy of insurance and Florida law. While this response is meant to be comprehensive, State Farm’s response above is based upon the limited information provided in the Civil Remedy Notice and the information we have to date. If the Insured feels that we are not in possession of all the facts, please inform us immediately. Please note that State Farm’s response is not necessarily exhaustive and does not preclude us from asserting any other valid reason for seeking rejection and return of the Civil Remedy Notice. Also, this letter or any act or failure to act on the part of State Farm or any agent or representative of State Farm construed as a waiver of any rights or defenses, including by not limited to proper notice and service by the Insured available to it by contract or at law as all such rights and defenses are hereby specifically reserved. We trust that this response addresses the allegations of insurer violation alleged in the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation. State Farm has requested and continues its requests that the Insured cooperate and provide specific information with respect to each alleged violation, including the name of each individual involved, the date of each violation, a description of each violation, and copies of documentation referencing each violation. As it stands now, the Notice is insufficient for the purpose of allowing State Farm to fully respond and/or remedy the alleged violations, if any. Should you have any questions regarding this matter or need anything further, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
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