Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     802564
Filing Accepted:  1/21/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
PRESTON   First Name   ELIZABETH
Street Address * 750 VEGA COURT NORTHEAST
City, State Zip * PALM BAY, FL 32907
Email Address * [WITHHELD]
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   PRESTON   First Name   ELIZABETH
Policy # * FPH3­000080058 Claim #* 01000110855
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* ROLLE First Name * CRAIG Initial D.
Street Address* 708 E. COLONIAL DR., SUITE 103
City, State Zip* ORLANDO , FLORIDA 32803
Email Address * CR@WEKLAW.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   FIRST PROTECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10897
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* SEE BELOW
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
Claim Delay
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Unfair Trade Practice
* Statutory provision(s) which the insurer allegedly violated.
 
624.155(1)(b)(1) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests.
624.155(1)(b)(3) Except as to liability coverages, failing to promptly settle claims, when the obligation to settle a claim has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Specific policy language contained in the Insureds' insurance contract that is relevant to the violations by FRONTLINE Insurance Company includes, but is not limited to, the following: Coverage A, B, C, D and E Provisions, all additional Coverage Provisions, all coverage provided by endorsement or rider, the declarations page, loss payment or settlement provisions, provisions pertaining to the duties in the event of a loss, all terms and conditions pertaining to Section I of the insurance policy, the insurance policy’s definitions section, the insurance policy’s exclusion of coverage provisions, all insurance policy provisions that provide coverage to the Insureds’ property; and all other relevant 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.

In consideration of payment of an annual premium, an all-risk residential property insurance policy was in full force and effect with First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Homeowners Insurance (“Carrier” or “Frontline”) bearing policy number FPH3¬000080058 and claim number 01000110855, for a property located at 750 Vega Court Northeast, Palm Bay, FL 32907 (“Property”). The owner of the Property is the named Insured Elizabeth Preston. On or about April 27, 2023, the Insured’s Property suffered a loss from stormy weather. In response, the Carrier assigned the above claim number to this loss and conducted an inspection of the Property. Shortly thereafter, the Carrier improperly denied coverage for this claim. Unhappy with the Carrier’s treatment and handling of this claim, the Insureds retained the undersigned counsel which could have been avoided had the Carrier properly investigated and correctly paid the entire estimate for this claim. The Carrier failed to promptly settle the Insureds’ insurance claim when the obligation to settle the insurance claim had become reasonably clear. The Carrier has therefore NOT acted in good faith during the adjustment of this claim. Specifically, the Carrier has violated the following statutory provisions under Florida law: • Carrier has violated Florida Statute § 624.155(1)(b)(3) by failing to promptly settle this obviously covered claim to influence settlement in its favor. Despite being presented with evidence that it has underpaid this claim, the Carrier still refuse to made additional payments. • The Carrier has violated Florida Statutes § 626.9541(1)(i)(2) and § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) by making material misrepresentations to the Insured for the purpose and with the intent to settle the claim on less favorable terms than those provided and contemplated by the policy. • The Carrier has also violated § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) when it failed to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigations of claims. Quite simply, FRONTLINE and its representatives are willfully blind and grossly underqualified to handle a loss such as the one sustained by the Insureds. In addition, after being placed on notice as to the blatant failure to properly adjust this claim, FRONTLINE has yet to rectify their actions and do right thing by the Insureds by paying the money they are contractually owed. We believe FRONTLINE will profit from its wrongful conduct and its behavior is tantamount to unfair claim settlement practices under Florida Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3). As noted above, the Carrier violated § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) by failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon the communications with respect to the claim. The Insureds have more than complied with every request and duty under the Policy and there has still been no action by FRONTLINE to rectify its underpayment of this claim. In the event the Carrier needs additional information, it has failed to promptly notify the Insureds in a timely manner. Moreover, this pattern of behavior is perpetuated by FRONTLINE and its representatives undeterred by the Ethical Requirements that are imposed by law on all Adjusters. Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. (3) explicitly states the adjustment of insurance claims engage the trust of the public, and therefore, an adjuster has a duty of fair and honest treatment of the Insureds throughout the insurance claim process. Several duties and responsibilities owed to the Insureds were violated in the handling of this claim, which are specifically listed responsibilities of an Adjuster in the Florida Administrative Code. These breached duties and responsibilities include adjusters from FRONTLINE approaching the investigation and settlement in a manner prejudicial to the Insured, failing to allow a fair settlement with her and acting with due diligence in achieving a proper disposition of the claim. In contrast to the legislative intent motivating the enumeration of an Adjuster’s responsibilities outlined in the Administrative Code, the Insureds were not afforded the professional duties entrusted on FRONTLINE by the public. As of the filing of this civil remedy notice, FRONTLINE has failed to adequately compensate the Insureds for the damage that occurred on or about February 4, 2024. As a direct result of FRONTLINE’s delay and failure to respond to the Insureds, they were forced to seek the help of legal counsel. Due to the amount of time that has passed since the date of loss, this acknowledgement is evidence that FRONTLINE knowingly and intentionally delayed the claims process to further disadvantage the Insureds. The financial detriment caused to the Insureds is a direct result of FRONTLINE’s reckless delay of the claim and litigation process. The Insureds were (and still are) dutiful customers who made it a priority to pay their insurance premiums to ensure that in such an event as this devastating incident, their home would be covered. In other words, the Insureds have held up her end of the contractual bargain whereas the Carrier has not. The Insureds timely filed her claim once they had discovered the source of the covered loss and the ensuring damage caused by it. All requested information and documentation were turned over to FRONTLINE and its representatives promptly by the Insured. FRONTLINE failed at every step of the process to adequately establish or identify the bFRONTLINEs of its gross mismanagement of the claim, failed to inform the Insureds how they may remedy any deficiencies in her claim, and failed to provide her with qualified representatives to ensure the claim was initially adjusted, evaluated, estimated properly, and paid fully. To deny the Insureds the benefit of their bargain after they have satisfied all of the obligations is morally and ethically reprehensible, and reeks of Unfair Trade Practice. Upon information and belief, the actions complained of, among others, made by FRONTLINE so often as to constitute a general business practice, evidencing a motive to enhance its profits, and designed to cause a detrimental effect to its policy holder. FRONTLINE was aware that the Insureds’ damages were covered under the policy yet took advantage of them in an attempt to force them into an irreparable disadvantaged position by underpaying the claim. The Carrier hopes that its conduct will force the Insured to settle for less coverage than they are contractually entitled to under the policy. This notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, should FRONTLINE fail to cure the violations set forth in this Civil Remedy Notice within the given time period. To cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, FRONTLINE must: (1) Immediately tender all insurance proceeds due and owing to the Insureds that are fairly owed to them under the insurance policy that would reasonably place them back to a pre-loss condition pursuant to the estimate of damages in the amount of $42,412.00.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
jay@jaylevylaw.com 03-12-2025 Craig D. Rolle, Esquire VIA EMAIL: CR@WEKLaw.com Weisser Elazar & Kantor, PLLC 708 East Colonial Drive Suite 103 Orlando, Florida 32803 RE: Elizabeth Preston v. First Protective Insurance Company CLAIM NO: 01000110855 INSURED: Elizabeth Preston D/INCIDENT: 4/27/23 DFS FILING NO: 802564 Dear Mr. Rolle: This correspondence constitutes First Protective Insurance Com-pany’s (“FPIC”) response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation No. 802564 (“CRN”) you filed on behalf of Elizabeth Preston (“Complain-ant”) regarding the claim listed above. FPIC welcomes the opportunity to respond to this CRN and specif-ically denies each and every allegation contained in the CRN filed in re-lation to this claim. With that said, FPIC believes that the CRN fails to comply with the specific notice and information requirements as set forth in §624.155, Fla. Stat. and Florida case law. The CRN that you filed fails to set forth any specific policy lan-guage alleged to have been violated as required by §624.155(3)(b)(4), Fla. Stat.. The CRN, in essence, identifies the entirety of the insurance policy without specifying any specific policy language or provision. The failure to identify any specific policy provision allegedly relevant to the purported violations prevents FPIC from addressing any issues regard-ing the policy and, for this reason, the CRN is non-compliant with §624.155, Fla. Stat. Moreover, a review of Complainant’s insurance claim with FPIC re-veals that FPIC fully complied with all of its statutory and policy obliga-tions and responsibilities. FPIC received notification of the claim on March 26, 2024, 334 days after the loss which occurred on April 27, 2023. FPIC promptly sent a claims notification package which included a Proof of Loss form and requested that Complainant supply a Sworn Proof of Loss within 60 days. FPIC did not receive the Sworn Proof of Loss for until July 24, 2024. Although a Sworn Proof of Loss was not provided within the time period requested by FPIC, FPIC proceeded with its adjustment of the claim as is evidenced by the following: 1. On March 29, 2024, 3 days after receiving notification of the claim, FPIC had the property inspected. 2. On April 2, 2024, FPIC sent a reservation of rights letter indi-cating that there was a potential denial of coverage due to the failure to promptly report the loss. 3. FPIC retained an engineer to evaluate the house for wind/hail damage and render an opinion as to causation and damage to the house. The expert concluded that the damage to the foyer and garage ceiling was due to thermal expansion and contraction of the drywood and wood framing and was not the result of a storm event on or around the reported date of loss; The shingle roof was in fair condition with re-gard to weathering; No hail-related damage observed on the roof; and, The damage to the northeast corner of the roof was age-related deterio-ration and mechanical damage and not due to wind-related forces. 4. On June 20. 2024, FPIC sent a coverage determination letter denying Complainant’s claim. The letter states: “Your Homeowner’s Pol-icy does not provide coverage for wear and tear, deterioration, corrosion, settling, shrinking, or expansion, maintenance and mechanical damage. As such, based upon the terms and conditions of your insurance policy, Frontline must respectfully deny your claim.” 5. Thereafter, Complainant retained a public adjustor who sub-mitted an estimate together with a Sworn Proof of Loss. On August 9, 2024, FPIC wrote to the insureds and indicated that the Sworn Proof of Loss failed to comply with the requirements set forth in the policy and was not submitted within 60 days. 6. On August 29, 2024, FPIC advised that it had reopened the claim due to the receipt of the Sworn Proof of Loss and after reviewing the Sworn Proof of Loss, maintained its position that there was no cov-erage for the loss. Based upon the foregoing which is not intended to be inclusive of all ac-tions taken by FPIC with regard to the Complainant’s claim, FPIC has acted timely, with due diligence, and in good faith in the investigation of the Complainant’s claim and has complied with all applicable standards for the adjustment of the claim and has not committed bad faith in its handling of her claim. While this response is meant to be comprehensive, FPIC’s re-sponse above is based upon the limited information provided in the CRN and the information FPIC has to date. If Complainant believes that FPIC is not in possession of all the facts, please inform me immediately. Please note that FPIC’s response is not necessarily exhaustive and does not preclude it from asserting any other valid reason for lack of compliance with §624.155, Fla. Stat. Also, this letter or any act or failure to act on the part of FPIC or any agent or representative of FPIC should not be construed as a waiver of any rights or defenses including but not limited to proper notice and service by Complainant 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 Violations. Should you have any questions regarding this matter or need anything further, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Sincerely yours, JAY M. LEVY, P.A. By:/s/ Jay M. Levy JAY M. LEVY, ESQUIRE JML/wlb
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