Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     802856
Filing Accepted:  1/22/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
FFC PROPERTY GROUP, LLC   First Name  
Street Address * 2938 SANIBEL BLVD., ST.
City, State Zip * JAMES CITY, FL 33956
Email Address * WITHHELD
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   FFC PROPERTY GROUP, LLC   First Name  
Policy # * 7166990679 Claim #* 05000001172
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* WALLACE First Name * BLAKE Initial
Street Address* 8635 W. HILLSBOROUGH AVE., STE. 401
City, State Zip* TAMPA , FLORIDA 33615
Email Address * BLAKE@KLINGLAW.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):* RYAN ALLUM & ALAN LEVESQUE
Type of Insurance * Commercial 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.
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)(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.

The specific policy provisions the carrier violated are the loss payment provision, the loss settlement provision, and the coverage provisions. Specifically, the loss payment provision states “we will adjust all losses with you.” Yet, the carrier did not consult the homeowner in deciding who would investigate the cause or amount of damages, and what the ultimate payment should be. The other provisions are pasted on the pages following the signature block.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

January 22, 2025 Sent Via E-Portal First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Insurance Company RE: Insured : FFC PROPERTY GROUP, LLC (hereinafter, “Insured”) Policy # : 7166990679 Claim # : 05000001172 Property Address : 2938 Sanibel Blvd., St. James City, FL 33956-2233 Persons most knowledgeable of facts giving rise to the Violations: Ryan Allum, Alan Levesque Dear FRONTLINE INSURANCE COMPANY: Please find enclosed the civil remedy notice filed for the above referenced claim. This notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by Florida Statute §624.155 As discussed in greater detail in the notice, the carrier has not attempted in good faith to settle the claimant’s claim when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its claimant and with due regard for its interests. The carrier has done everything possible to delay the claim and refuses to provide any sort of status of the claim. Furthermore, the carrier is required to properly investigate and adjust claims and cannot place that burden upon the insured. This was made clear by the appellate court and the Florida Supreme Court in Allstate Indemnity Co. v. Ruiz, 899 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 2005) (“The Legislature has clearly chosen to impose on the insurance companies a duty to use good faith and fair dealing in processing and litigating the claims of their insured…”). The carrier was put on notice of the insured’s Hurricane Ian claim on October 3, 2022. Since the commencement of the claim the carrier has failed to timely communicate with the insured. It is obvious that the carrier is not attempting to pay for the clearly covered damages owed under the policy. The carrier assigned Ryan Allum, who is neither an engineer nor a registered contractor, to inspect the loss and write an estimate of the damages to the property. On February 8, 2023, over one hundred and twenty-eight (128) days later the carrier issued its estimate stating the unilateral determinations that the damages were covered would total to the amount of $433,664.71 for full repairs to the property prior to the application of the deductible and recoverable depreciation. In reaching those conclusions, Frontline failed to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. There was no explanation whatsoever as to how Frontline determined the valuation of the damage caused by the covered peril. Moreover, the carrier’s failure to assign a qualified and experienced engineer further violates F.S. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) and F.S. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d). Additionally, the carrier failed to describe how it arrived at the amount it withheld for depreciation. The policy does not explain how depreciation or actual cash value is calculated, and the carrier did not explain the facts or applicable law in relation to the payment made. This is a violation of F.S. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f). Florida Statute 627.70131(3)(e) requires the carrier to provide an estimate within 7 days after the estimate is generated by the insurer’s adjuster. However, it is clear that Frontline took from October 30, 2022, when the property was inspected, till February 8, 2023, to produce the estimate that was generated from its inspection. This is over one hundred and one (101) days from when the inspection took place. The insurer must send the policyholder a copy of any detailed estimate of the amount of the loss within 7 days after the estimate is generated by an insurer’s adjuster. The carrier’s failure to produce the estimate generated by Ryan Allum in a timely manner is in further violation of F.S. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) as the carrier failed to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to the claim. The carrier’s decision came only after the delay that it had caused and it was solely responsible for. Pursuant to F.S. § 627.70131(7)(a), within 60 days after an insurer receives notice of an initial, reopened, or supplemental property insurance claim from a policyholder, the insurer shall pay or deny such claim or a portion of the claim unless the failure to pay is caused by factors beyond the control of the insurer. The carrier’s failure to come to a timely decision was in violation of F.S. §626.9541(1)(i)(4) as the carrier has failed 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, determine the amounts of partial or full benefits, and agree to coverage, unless payment of the undisputed benefits is prevented by factors beyond the control of the insurer as defined in F.S. 627.70131(5). Furthermore, this undue continual delay and failure to inspect is in violation of F.S. §624.155(1)(b)(1), as the delay was in direct disregard of the insured’s interests and F.S. §624.155(1)(b)(3), as the carrier has failed to promptly settle the claim. The insured has been compelled to obtain an independently adjusted estimates, invoices, and other documentation totaling in the amount of $531,000.00 that would be needed to repair the property back to its pre-loss condition. The insured has complied with all the carrier’s requests to date. The carrier has still refused to pay the fully covered amount owed under the policy, instead electing to stand by its unilaterally determined deficient valuation of the loss. This is in violation of F.S. 624.155(1)(b)(1) and 624.155(1)(b)(3) as the carrier is clearly placing the company’s interests before the claimant’s interests and not attempting in good faith to settle claims. It is clear that the carrier is not treating the claimant with good faith claims conduct; failing to pay a claim clearly owed; not adjusting the claim and evaluating the loss properly, promptly and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to the claimant; failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims and placing the company’s interests before the claimant’s interests; not training, supervising or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made; refusing to pay the full amount owed to the insured despite the fact that the damages are covered under the policy; looking for ways to delay full recovery or any recovery to the insured; and refusing to provide coverage for the claimant’s loss in a timely manner. The Carrier’s actions are in violation of Florida Statutes §§ 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), 627.4137(1), and Fla. Stat. §627.70131. The actions taken by Frontline in the handling/adjustment of the insured’s claim were willful, wanton, malicious, and in reckless disregard for the rights of any insureds and occur with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice, and further are in violation of Florida Statutes §624.155 and F.S. §626.954. Indeed, when performing a search on the Florida Department of Financial Services website’s Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation page the results of searches of violations of the statutes referenced herein by the carrier returned the following results thereby indicating that the number of times they occur rise to the level of a general business practice, and warrant punitive damages: §624.155(1)(b)(1) = 5,573 §624.155(1)(b)(3) = 3,809 §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) = 5,393 §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) = 3,818 §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) = 2,879 §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f) = 2,986 §626.9541(1)(i)(4) = 732 Based upon the above-referenced acts and omissions, the carrier has breached the insurance contract by failing to pay the amount due to the insured, by denying coverage which existed under the insurance contract with the insured in the instant dispute, by failing to adjust the loss with the insureds, and by failing to perform and adequate investigation. These are violations and breaches of the policy language cited above. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, the carrier must: 1) Pay the complete covered loss in the amount of $531,000.00 less any applicable policy deductible and prior payment(s); and 2) Pay the statutory interest on the amount of unpaid damages from the date of loss to the date payment is finally made. A copy of this letter and filed form submitted to the FDFS has been emailed to the carrier. The specific policy provisions the carrier violated are the loss payment provision, the loss settlement provision, and the coverage provisions. Specifically, the loss payment provision states “we will adjust all losses with you.” Yet, the carrier did not consult the homeowner in deciding who would investigate the cause or amount of damages, and what the ultimate payment should be. The other provisions are pasted on the pages following the signature block. If you have any questions or concerns, please send all correspondence via email to Blake@klinglaw.com and Jorlyn@KlingLaw.com to ensure a prompt response. We ask that all correspondence be done via email rather than regular mail. Should you need to send something regular mail, please advise us prior to sending same via the emails above. Sincerely, Blake M. Wallace, Esq. Blake M. Wallace Attorney at Law Enclosed: Civil Remedy Filing
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
hzelinger@bressler.com 03-21-2025 Dear Mr. Wallace: Please accept this response on behalf of Frontline Insurance Unlimited (hereinafter “Frontline”) to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (hereinafter “CRN”) No. 802856, filed on behalf of FFC Property Group, LLC (hereinafter, the “Complainant” or the “Insured”), and accepted by the Florida Department of Financial Services on January 22, 2025. As a preliminary matter, the CRN is deficient and must be rejected because the CRN identifies the carrier as First Protective Insurance Company when the policy was underwritten by Frontline Insurance Unlimited and issued by Frontline Insurance. As a result, the CRN is facially and substantively deficient. The Insured failed to file a statutorily compliant CRN and has failed to strictly comply with the statute’s requirements. See Florida Statute 624.155. Due to the reference to the wrong insurance company in the CRN, Frontline is not on proper notice to cure any alleged bad faith allegations and the CRN fails to preserve any future bad faith claim. Frontline specifically preserves all arguments related to the statutory deficiencies but is also responding to the CRN allegations, without waiver. The Civil Remedy Notice (“CRN”) alleges that Frontline violated the following statutes: 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)(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)(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). Please accept this as Frontline’s response to the above-referenced CRN and Frontline specifically preserves all objections raised as well as all deficiencies noted herein. To summarize the below, Frontline hereby denies any allegation of not attempting to settle claims in good faith when it could and should have done so; failing to promptly settle claims when the obligation to settle a claim has become reasonably clear; denying claims without reasonable investigations, failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims; and failing to provide explanations as it relates to a denial of coverage. Consistent with the very nature of the CRN and the deficiencies noted by Frontline, the CRN even cites to Florida Statute 626.9541(1)(i)(4) and cites to residential policies when the property and policy involved was a Commercial Property Policy. Frontline states that it has at all times handled and adjusted the Complainant’s claim with utmost good faith. Simply put, Frontline denies any acts or omission that could be construed or found to be deemed bad faith and/or a violation of Florida Statutes § 624.155 and § 626.9541, whether expressly stated in the Civil Remedy Notice or implied. Any and all allegations of bad faith are hereby denied and rejected in their entirety by Frontline. Beyond Frontline’s adamant belief that it acted with the utmost good faith, the CRN is deficient and fails to preserve any and all claims for statutory bad faith under Florida Law. As an initial matter, Frontline denies and rejects the instant CRN as it fails to comply with the requirements of Florida Statute § 624.155. Florida Statute § 624.155 requires a complainant to file with the Department of Financial Services a Civil Remedy Notice which shall be “on a form provided by the [Department] and shall state with specificity…such other information as the Department may require.” The Department created a CRN form, Form DFS-10-363, which lays out 15 requirements, including in part, the Complainant’s e-mail address, Complainant type, claim number, attorney’s name, attorney’s address, attorney’s e-mail address, type of insurer, the person with knowledge of the facts giving rise to the allegations, and the reason for notice. According to § 624.155, these mandates are required by the Department, and they must be stated with specificity. The instant CRN fails to provide the specificity required by § 624.155 and fails to comply with the form requirements as a whole based on the failure to include citation to a claim number that corresponds to the facts contained within the CRN. Therefore, the instant CRN is facially deficient. See Bay v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, No. 4D19-3332, 2020 WL 6154256 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct. 21, 2020). Frontline notes that the name of the carrier is incorrect and tireless efforts were undertaken by Frontline to understand the scope of the dispute during the cure period, without any substantive response from the Insured. These reasons render the CRN null and void. Furthermore, the CRN’s attempt to identify the specific policy language relevant to the violation is woefully deficient. “Courts have found that listing whole sections of the insurance policy constitutes insufficient specificity.” See Fox v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., No. 8:16-CV-3254-T-23MAP, 2017 WL 1541294 at *2 and Julien v. United Property & Casualty Insurance Company No. 4D19-2763 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020).” When prompted to reference the policy language that is relevant to the alleged violation, the Complainant lists “the loss payment provision, the loss settlement provision, and the coverage provisions…the loss payment provision states we will adjust all losses with you.” The cited policy language is non-specific, vague, ambiguous and fails to comply with Florida Statutes. Accordingly, the CRN does not provide the contemplated and mandated notice of alleged bad faith that is required as a condition precedent to any civil claim for bad faith pursuant to Florida Statute § 624.155. Julien v. United Property & Casualty Insurance Company No. 4D19-2763 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020). Failure to provide specific reference to the relevant policy language is direct and clear noncompliance with the requirements of Florida Statute § 624.155, and therefore renders the CRN deficient on its face as to form and substance. For these reasons alone, the CRN fails at its inception. Additionally, the CRN fails to provide a complete description relating to the facts and/or circumstances which give rise to the alleged statutory violations, thus, prejudicing Frontline from providing any meaningful or complete response. Hence the reason, as described in detail throughout this CRN response, that upon receipt of this CRN, Frontline made numerous attempts to understand the Insured’s claim, without any cooperation from the Insured or their counsel. In summary, the CRN is hardly more than a recitation of a number of Florida statutory provisions, with no factual allegations in support of the conclusory statutory recitations. The allegations can be summarized as following: • An alleged failure to communicate with the Insured; • That the insurer failed to retain an engineer or registered contractor to inspect the loss (which is untrue as stated below, as Professional Engineer Jeffrey Ellis was retained); • That the insurer unilaterally set the amount of the loss in the amount of $433,664.71, 128 days after the loss; • That the insurer failed to set the proper standards for investigating the claim; • That the insurer failed to explain the depreciation; • That the insurer was statutorily obligated to produce the estimate sooner than February 8, 2023; • That the Insured has documents totaling $531,000 in damages and/or for repairs; • That notwithstanding the Insured’s compliance with all of the insurer’s requests, the insurer has failed to fully pay for the loss; • That the insurer’s actions were part of a general business practice; and • That the carrier must pay $531,000 less prior payments and less the deductibles to cure the claim; A Civil Remedy Notice must state the facts and circumstances that give rise to an alleged violation with specificity sufficient to allow an insurer to cure the alleged violation within the sixty-day statutory period. Lane v. Westfield Insurance Company, 862 So.2d 774 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Here, even though Frontline directly disputes each and every allegation above, the CRN broadly cites these concerns without explaining specific facts in support of same. The instant CRN therefore fails to comply with the requirements of Florida Statute § 624.155(3), which requires that a CRN of insurer violation “state with specificity,” inter alia, the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violations. Generally, the CRN lacks the requisite facts and/or specificity, as ruled on numerous times and cited to throughout this Response, to put Frontline on notice as to the allegations against it. Again, without waiving the argument related to the facial deficiencies of the CRN, the CRN is devoid of sufficient facts to adequately respond. The allegations are also legally inaccurate and the Insured has misinterpreted Florida Statutes. By way of example, the Insured cites to Florida Statute 627.70131(3)(e) to say that the carrier had to produce the estimate within 7 days of it being generated, that being said, at the time the claim was reported and at the time that the estimate was submitted to the Insured, that statute was not even in effect. Another example of the flaws contained with the barebones allegations is that the Insured claims that it has complied with all of the insurer’s requests yet has not received “full” payment. As outlined below, the Insured still has not submitted the documents that were reasonably requested in connection with this claim. As a result, the actual facts underlying this claim undermine the allegations contained within the CRN. By way of background, on October 3, 2022, a claim was reported to Frontline as a result of Hurricane Ian damage having occurred on September 28, 2022. That same day, Frontline issued an initial acknowledgement of the claim. On November 17, 2023, Frontline issued a Reservation of Rights letter to the Insured and requested photographs of the loss on the date the damage was discovered, repair estimates and proposals and a sworn proof of loss statement. Acting nearly immediately upon the claim, on October 30, 2022, Frontline performed its initial inspection at the Insured Location. While damage was noted as a result of Hurricane Ian, there was also evidence of flood and storm surge to the exterior and interior of the building. Although the Insured alleges that a contractor or engineer should have performed the inspection, no where in the policy does it mandate that a contractor or engineer inspect. Conversely, it is standard to dispatch a licensed adjuster to perform this type of inspection. Within thirty (30) days of the inspection, on November 26, 2022, Frontline issued correspondence regarding the findings from the October 30, 2022 inspection. Frontline advised that coverage was being afforded in the amount of $52,342.51 replacement cost value (RCV) for building 1 less the depreciation of $1,975.73 and the deductible of $20,737.72, resulting in a net payment of $29,629.06 for building 1. As it relates to building 2, Frontline informed the Insured that it had evaluated the claim at $51,903.60 RCV less $2,242.12 in depreciation and the $20,737.72 deductible resulting in a net payment of $28,923.76 for building 2. The payments were clearly broken down in the coverage letter. Contrary to the allegations within the CRN, Frontline attached the estimate in which payment was based. Moreover, in a constant effort to communicate about this claim, on December 26, 2022, Frontline issued correspondence regarding the status of the claim. Frontline continued to adjust the claim notwithstanding the allegation that Frontline failed to adjust the loss with the Insured. To that end, on February 28, 2023, Frontline issued a coverage determination letter. Based on the reinspection, Frontline issued two supplemental payments in the amount of $146,783.60 and $157,645.46 for building damage. Frontline noted, as it did in every payment correspondence, that the payments did not necessarily constitute a full and final settlement of the claim and that supplemental claims could be submitted as repairs were made and costs were incurred. The payment was based on a RCV evaluation of $208,659.62, less $13,449.94 in depreciation, $20,737.72 for the deductible and the prior payments of $32,688.36, plus the property endorsement sign for the $5,000 policy limit as it relates to building one. The payment letter also included building 2 RCV at $219,085.85 less $11,073.61 in depreciation, the $20,737.72 deductible and prior payment of $29,629.06. The Insured then came forward and demanded payment based on loss of business income. On April 18, 2023, Frontline issued correspondence as it relates to loss of business income and business personal property claim arising out of the loss. Frontline informed the Insured that coverage was being afforded for the business income claim based on the third party accountant’s evaluation. As a result, two checks totaling $100,000 were being issued, with the breakdown of $50,000 for each building. The Insured subsequently submitted an invoice dated November 1, 2023 from Brad Karsner Construction which included a lump sum charge of $175,000 for a roof replacement from MHI services, without further itemization or information. Throughout this entire process, Frontline has requested itemization and clarification as to this charge. Although the insured submitted a Sworn Proof of Loss Statement in the amount of $561,280, there was insufficient evidence to justify additional payments on behalf of Frontline. As a result, on January 18, 2024, Frontline issued correspondence regarding the $561,280 Proof of Loss. Frontline informed the Insured that the RCV amount of the loss was $433,664.72 and that Frontline was not in agreement, nor was there evidence to support the amounts claimed. Consistent with the efforts undertaken by Frontline, as the claim adjustment continued, on February 20, 2024, Frontline issued correspondence in connection with the claim. Frontline noted that two payment checks would be made in the amount of $13,449.94 and $11,073.61, representing recoverable depreciation for building damage for both Building 1 and Building 2. Again, the CRN alleges that Frontline withheld depreciation on this claim which is patently false. All of the allegations contained within the CRN are undermined by the actual facts of this case. On April 4, 2023, Professional Engineer Jeffrey Ellis from Sdii Global Corporation, inspected the Insured Location on behalf of Frontline. During the inspection, Mr. Ellis met with the Insured Representative, Brad Karsner, the maintenance contractor and Charlie Mecka, the property manager. Mr. Ellis also inspected the property, reviewed historical images, researched weather data and photographed the site conditions. The representatives advised that the primary areas of concern were the building interiors on the first floor and the roof. However, at the time of the inspection, repairs were underway. As a result, no conditions remained to permit Sdii the opportunity to evaluate the claimed wind damage to the roof. Similarly, there were no conditions to the interior that allowed for inspection of reported wind damage to the interior buildings. On August 19, 2024, Frontline informed the Insured that additional payments in the amount of $33,534.13 would be issued for building damage and a tree replacement. The letter broke down the Replacement Cost Value of the loss at $242,193.75 less the deductible of $20,737.72 and less the prior payments in the amount of $187,921.90. On August 29, 2024, a Letter of Representation was submitted on behalf of Katranis, Wald & Garner, PLLC. On August 30, 2024, Frontline acknowledged counsel’s representation of the Insured, Majd Asaad. Frontline requested the signed contract from MHI Services, an itemized estimate for the roof replacement, invoices for costs incurred and an updated demand and sworn proof of loss. On September 9, 2024, Frontline issued correspondence noting that the damaged trees would be reimbursed for the $5,000 limit. Frontline also requested that the Insured produce a signed contract from MHI Services, an itemized estimate for the roof replacement and building repairs, all receipts and invoices for incurred costs of covered repairs for Hurricane Ian damage, the demand and updated Sworn Proof of Loss. On October 4, 2024, Frontline responded to a supplemental Sworn Proof of Loss that was submitted in the amount of $531,000 for the buildings and $100,000 for business interruption. Frontline noted that the investigation of the claim determined that the RCV was in the amount of $437,745.87 and that Frontline had already exhausted the policy limits for business interruption and issued payments totaling $100,000. As a result, the Sworn Proof of Loss Statement was denied. On October 2, 2024, the Insured submitted documents purportedly in connection with this claim. As demonstrated below, the documents in and of themselves, do not establish that costs were incurred or that the damages, proposals or repair, specifically relate to Hurricane Ian. The Insured submitted the following: • Russell’s Electric from April 10, 2023 for an attic fan installation. Nothing in the invoice relates the cost to the hurricane claim or damage; • Jet Fan from April 4, 2023 in the amount of $6734 for the roof mounted attic fan. Nothing in the invoice relates to the cost to the hurricane claim or damage; • Various non-descript Lowe’s receipts; • Brad Karsner Construction invoice from April 10, 2023 in the amount of $13,396.13 for the installation of attic vents, replacement of damaged gutters, roof vents, repair to damaged stucco and removal of old insulation. The replacement of damaged gutters was in the amount of $1,050 and the damaged stucco repair was for $2,250; • ServPro estimate for mold related work in the amount of $6,662.48; • Karsner Construction invoice for a roof replacement in the amount of $29,802.95. There is no indication whether the invoice was paid by the Insured and the date even says “Enter invoice date.” • Profit and Loss Statement without any context as to which items relate to Hurricane Ian; On November 25, 2024, Frontline issued correspondence to FFC Property Group LLC as well as Katranis, Wald & Garner PLLC. The letter acknowledged receipt of the documents that were sent in on October 2, 2024, including the 12 pages of invoices and quotes and the 14 pages of vendors and amounts. Frontline requested clarification on the duplication of the invoices and how they relate to the total amount claimed as well as the list of costs and how they were related to the claim, along with proof of payment. In no uncertain terms, Frontline advised that no payments would be issued based on the submitted documents. On December 19, 2024, Kling Law submitted a request to open a claim based on damages that allegedly occurred on September 28, 2022. The letter noted that there were damages to the ceilings, floors, roof, electrical systems, stucco and exterior walls. Upon receipt of the Letter of Representation, Frontline responded on January 21, 2025 and referred counsel to the prior correspondence from the file. This includes the November 25, 2024 letter acknowledging receipt of documentation from Majd Asaad and the request for documents that remained outstanding. In fact, Frontline provided a detailed timeline of events from November 25, 2024 to December 19, 2024 when Frontline called Majd Asaad without success and additional correspondence on January 15, 2025 to which no response was received. Significantly, on January 21, 2025 when Frontline responded to the letter of representation, Frontline reiterated the prior request for costs related to the invoices that were submitted and detailed information related to the costs, proof of costs incurred, and how they related to the insurance claim. Frontline has been following up on these requests and has sought clarification for months from the Insured and its counsel, without any cooperation from the other side. The instant CRN was filed on January 22, 2025. Upon receipt of same and a review of the allegations, Frontline immediately reached out to counsel for the Insured. On February 12, 2025, formal written correspondence was sent by counsel of Frontline to counsel for the Insured requesting clarification about the net amount claimed, proof of costs incurred, evidence of entitlement to recoverable depreciation, the completion of a flood authorization, estimates and documents related to Hurricane Milton and any documents in response to the amount demanded. That same day, Frontline also requested that the Insured submit to mediation to obtain the requested information and work on any dispute that may exist. Frontline did not receive a response to this reasonable inquiry to understand the Civil Remedy Notice. Due to the Insured’s failure to respond to the February 12, 2025 requests, on March 4, 2025, counsel for Frontline followed up and asked the Insured’s counsel about the status of outstanding documentation and inquiring as to whether the client would agree to mediation. The next day, the attorney responded and apologized for any perceived delays and requested a conference call. A conference call was then set for March 11, 2025, but the attorneys were unable to connect. Due to the failure to respond, on March 19, 2025, counsel for Frontline again issued formal written correspondence requesting the outstanding documentation and clarification as to the allegations contained within the CRN. Once again, no response was received. The CRN allegations are so vague and unclear, that Frontline continued to tirelessly follow up with counsel for the Insured during the 60 day cure period, without success. On March 19, 2025, a second email was sent and on March 20, 2025, another correspondence was sent, clearly laying out the issues with the CRN, the inability to ascertain the scope of the dispute and requesting an extension to allow time to respond so that the necessary information could be provided by the Insured. Notwithstanding counsel’s attempts to obtain clarification and documentation on February 12, 2025, March 4, 2025, March 19, 2025 and March 20, 2025, counsel never received a response from the Insured. Independent from all of the other reasons and deficiencies noted, this alone renders the CRN improper and demonstrates the good faith efforts on behalf of Frontline in connection with this claim. For all of the reasons stated above, the cure demand is indiscernible and as such Frontline is not given a fair opportunity to cure the CRN. For the reasons stated herein, the cure is improper as the facts and cure do not relate to the claim number cited within the CRN. Beyond that, the cure cannot be discerned. Frontline has sought clarification without any response. Without knowledge or information as to entitlement to recoverable depreciation, proof of costs incurred or the basis of the $531,000 demand, the Insured has done the functional equivalent of “Pay me everything I’ve asked for.” Rousso v. Liberty Surplis Ins. Co., 2010 WL 736059, *5 (S.D. Fla. 2010). “Insurers are not required to pay any amount demanded by their insureds to avoid a bad-faith claim.” Id. (citing 316, Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 625 F. Supp. 2d 1187, 1194 (N.D. Fla. 2008)). As outlined above, contrary to the allegations made by the CRN, Frontline sufficiently and diligently investigated the loss and continued to issue payment after payment. Frontline maintains that it has acted fairly and honestly toward the Complainant, and any other person having an interest in the subject policy or assisting the Complainant in connection with the instant claim. Frontline consistently and promptly communicated with the Complainant and/or their agents throughout all stages of the investigation and conducted a thorough investigation in good faith. To the extent that the instant CRN is intended to address any other facts or circumstances which purport to establish additional coverage for the reported losses, the CRN provides insufficient identification of any such facts or circumstances and therefore prevents Frontline from addressing any other aspect herein. Notwithstanding, Frontline believes that the above facts demonstrate beyond dispute that it has at all times acted in good faith with regard to its investigation of the subject claim, and further believes that the facts provided to date fail to establish that it has not adjusted the reported loss in accordance with the express terms, provisions, limitations and exclusions contained within the policy. If we can provide any additional information, or be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, /s/ Hope Zelinger Hope Zelinger, Esq.
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