Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     803101
Filing Accepted:  1/23/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
CARGILL   First Name   THOMAS
Street Address * 2712 S ATLANTIC AVE
City, State Zip * DAYTONA BEACH, FL 32118
Email Address * TCTPA523@YAHOO.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   CARGILL   First Name   THOMAS
Policy # * P003260741 Claim #* 257012
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* ALTMAN First Name * ALEXIS Initial
Street Address* 925 SOUTH FEDERAL HIGHWAY, 7TH FLOOR
City, State Zip* BOCA RATON , FL 33432
Email Address * AALTMAN@KPATTORNEY.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10117
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* DEIRDRE WILLIAMS
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Unfair Trade Practice
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
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.
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)(b) Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

loss settlement provision
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Security First Insurance (“carrier”) has not attempted, in good faith, to settle the insured’s claim when under all the circumstances it could have and should have done so had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for their interests. In fact, the carrier has intentionally under-valued the scope the insureds’ claim in an effort to maximize its profits, thereby preventing the insured from being able to restore his home to its pre-loss conditions. Security First has engaged in these actions, despite the clear and unequivocal burden discussed in Allstate Indemnity Co. v. Ruiz, 899 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 2005), wherein the Florida Supreme Court held, “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 insureds.” This claim arises from Hurricane Nicole which wreaked havoc and decimation in the State of Florida. The insured’s home fell victim to the devastating winds and rains and sustained substantial damage. After sending an estimator to the insured’s property, Security First sent a letter that the damages were under the insured’s deductible. The estimate included a roof repair totaling $887.98. Upon review of the carrier estimate and settlement letter, it was noted that the claim was improperly scoped, grossly underpaid, and is insufficient to properly indemnify Insured’s loss. Security First and its representative have failed at every step of the process. Security First has failed to adjust and settle the claim in good faith, in accordance with the insurance contract and Florida Statutes. Security First continues to conduct its investigation in a manner prejudicial to the insured, failing to complete a thorough and truthful investigation of the claim. To date, Security First has failed to fairly pay Insured for the damages they are owed. Pursuant to Florida Statute §624.155(1)(b)(1), Security First has failed to settle the claim in good faith when it could and should have done so. The Insured reported the Loss as soon as they were aware of the damage and the Property was presented for inspection. The damage to the Insured’ property was clearly caused by a covered peril under the Policy, but Security First intentionally turned a blind eye to the damage, low-balled the Claim, and callously delayed the claim process. Security First has not shown a good faith intention to pay what was owed but rather has underpaid the claim for financial gain and profit. Pursuant to Florida Statute §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), Security First has a duty to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. Adjuster Deirdre Williams displayed a lack of knowledge, improper training, and/or intent to underpay the claim by signing a letter stating the damages were under the insured’s policy and were excluded as well. Florida law mandates that insurers and adjusters do not mislead the Insured by misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages. Florida Insurance companies that fail to follow these Florida laws and regulations, designed to protect consumers, do not only breach their duties under the policy of insurance but do so in bad faith. In violation of Florida Statute §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), Security First intentionally misrepresented the available coverage under the policy and the damage to the property. This notice is provided in order to perfect a right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by Florida Statute §624.155. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, the carrier must: 1) Pay all amounts due and owing to the insured in the amount of $28,943.78 minus any applicable deductibles, for indemnity benefits; 2) Pay the statutory interest on the amount of unpaid damages from the date of loss to the date payment is finally made. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at 561-892-9988. We appreciate your attention to this matter. Alexis E. Altman, Esq.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
hgonzalez@securityfirstflorida.com 02-03-2025 02/03/2025 Via Electronic Filing: Florida Department of Financial Services Bureau of Consumer Assistance c/o: Civil Remedy Section Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0322 Via Email: Alexis Altman 925 S. Federal Highway 7th Floor Boca Raton, FL 33432 aaltman@kpattorney.com Re: CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE OF INSURER VIOLATION Filing No.: 803101 Insured: Thomas Cargill Insurer: Security First Insurance Company Claim No.: 257012 Policy No.: P003260741 Date of Loss: 11/09/2022 Dear Sir or Madam: This correspondence is in response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (hereinafter referred to as the “CRN”) was filed by Alexis Altman on behalf of his client, Thomas Cargill (hereinafter referred to as “Insured”). Please be advised that the undersigned represents the interests of Security First Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as “Security First”) with respect to the above-referenced matter. The Florida Department of Financial Services (hereinafter referred to as “Department”) assigned this CRN an acceptance date of 01/23/2025 and DFS File No.: 803101. This matter concerns a property damage claim made by the Insured pursuant to a homeowners’ insurance policy provided by Security First Policy No. P003260741 and assigned Claim No. 257012. As the basis for filing the CRN against Security First, Thomas Cargill asserts in the “Reasons for Notice” section violations such as Unfair Trade Practice, Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer and Claim Delay, along with the following statutory violations: 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c). Security First welcomes this opportunity to respond to the CRN and denies each allegation contained therein. The allegations made in the CRN are premature, as the insured has failed to perfect the claim for bad faith and the CRN does not meet the specificity requirement of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. This CRN does not sufficiently support the allegations stated above. As is standard procedure, upon the first notice of the claim, the subject property was dutifully inspected by an SFIC representative which was documented through photographs. I. Perfecting a Claim for Bad Faith SFIC specifically denies all allegations set forth in the Notice. SFIC contends that the Notice should be rejected and returned by the Department of Financial Services as it is premature. Pursuant to statute, there is no potential violation until a breach of contract is established. § 624.1551, Florida Statutes. Accordingly, any Notice filed prior to a finding that SFIC has breached the terms of the policy, is not ripe and is premature and thus fails to perfect Thomas Cargill rights to pursue civil remedies under Florida Statutes. II. Specificity Requirement The Insured’s CRN violates multiple requirements set forth in the Florida courts’ jurisprudence for Civil Remedy Notices. In addition, it fails to meet even the most basic requirements of the Statute. Pursuant to the terms of the statute, (3)(a) As a condition precedent to bringing an action under this section, the department and the authorized insurer must have been given 60 days’ written notice of the violations. Notice to the authorized insurer must be provided by the department to the e-mail address designated by the insurer under s. 624.422. a. The notice shall be on a form provided by the department and shall state with specificity the following information, and such other information as the department may require (emphasis added): b. (3)(a) As a condition precedent to bringing an action under this section, the department and the authorized insurer must have been given 60 days’ written notice of the violations. Notice to the authorized insurer must be provided by the department to the e-mail address designated by the insurer under s. 624.422. i. The statutory provision, including the specific language of the statute, which the authorized insurer allegedly violated. ii. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation. iii. The name of any individual involved in the violation. iv. Reference to specific policy language that is relevant to the violation, if any. If the person bringing the civil action is a third-party claimant, she or he shall not be required to reference the specific policy language if the authorized insurer has not provided a copy of the policy to the third-party claimant pursuant to written request. v. A statement that the notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section. In interpreting this statute, courts have emphasized the importance of filing specific civil remedy notices. The civil remedy notice is “crucial to the procedural integrity of an action” under the Statute. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Clohessy, 32 F.Supp.2d 1328, 1333 (M.D. Fla. 1998). “It is, without a doubt, a condition that must be satisfied in order for one to perfect the right to sue under the statute.” Id. “In creating this statutory remedy for bad- faith actions, the Legislature provided this sixty-day window as a last opportunity for insurers to comply with their claim-handling obligations when a good-faith decision by the insurer would indicate that contractual benefits are owed.” Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 2000). Thus, the Notice cannot be “vague and ‘shotgun’ in nature,” rather than “the type of specific notice required by the statute that would allow [the insurer] an opportunity to cure.” Heritage Corp. of South Florida v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 580 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1299 (S.D. Fla. 2008). Because it is in derogation of the common law, Section 624.155(1)(b), Florida Statutes must be strictly construed. Talat, 753 So. 2d at 1283 (citing Baxter v. Royal Indem. Co., 285 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). To perfect the right to sue under the statute, the insured must specifically notify the insured of any and all alleged violations claimed. Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 952 F.Supp. 773, 776 (M.D. Fla. 1996) (“Talat I”) See Fox v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., No. 8:16-CV-3254-T-23MAP, 2017 WL 1541294, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2017) (sufficiency means specificity). In Junior Julien v. United Property and Casualty Insurance Company, 311 So.3d 875, 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021), the Honorable Court stated: The Middle District of Florida was confronted with a civil remedy notice that was similarly broad in scope and concluded that listing nearly all policy provisions on the notice did not satisfy the statute. Fox v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., No. 8:16-CV-3254-T-23MAP, 2017 WL 1541294, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2017). The court explained that “[i]f the statute contained no specificity requirement, [then] the [insureds’] casual ‘reference’ to the entire insurance policy undoubtedly would suffice.” Id. But, the court continued, “the Legislature included ‘specific’ or a variant not once but twice in the statute.” Id. As a result, the insureds’ listing of whole sections of the insurance policy “appear[ed] to lack specificity.” Id. In Valenti, the District Court for the Middle District of Florida considered the practical consequences of an insured’s non-specific civil remedy notice. Valenti v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America, 2006 WL 1627276 (M.D. Fla. 2006). The plaintiff’s civil remedy notice included allegations that the defendant conducted an inadequate investigation. The plaintiff, however, failed to identify with the requisite specificity the defendant’s actions that were inadequate. The Middle District held that the plaintiff’s civil remedy notice was insufficient, and stated the following: [T]he civil remedy notice must be specific enough to provide insurers notice of the wrongdoing so the insurer can cure the same within sixty days. … Plaintiffs’ counsel, during the hearing in this matter, argued a civil remedy notice that states “you denied my claim” should be sufficient to place the insurer on notice of what was needed to be cured. Plaintiffs’ counsel further argued that it was up to the insurer, as the insurance expert, to decipher what actions needed to be cured. This argument, in this Court's estimation, is illogical and is counter to the purpose of the civil remedy notice. If a simple “you denied my claim” was sufficient to put insurers on notice, the sixty-day cure period would be little more than a guessing game with the insurer attempting to correctly guess what errors the insured claimed it made in the claims handling process, or risk defending a bad faith action. This surely is not what the legislature had in mind when it created the civil remedy notice. Accordingly, this Court finds that Plaintiffs allegation that Defendant failed to conduct an adequate investigation is insufficient to provide Defendant an opportunity to cure. Id. at *2. The guidance for an insured could not be more clear. “The purpose of the civil remedy notice is to give the insurer one last chance to settle a claim with its insured and avoid unnecessary bad faith litigation.” Lane v. Westfield Insurance Co., 862 So. 2d 774, 779 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Its purpose is not “to give the insured a right of action to proceed against the insurer even after the insured’s claim has been paid or resolved.” Id. Ultimately, conclusory allegations without facts fail to perfect a statutory bad faith claim. Merely alleging the bare minimum allegations is insufficient pursuant to Florida courts’ interpretations of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. III. Conclusion At all times, Security First has acted in good faith in its handling of the claim and it has acted fairly, honestly, and with due regard for the Insured’s interest and in determining obligations to Insured. Specifically, Security First has complied with its obligations under the applicable Florida Statutes and the applicable Security First Insurance policy. Security First specifically denies any claim for bad faith and argues that the insured’s claim for bad faith is premature. Security First continues to reserve all its rights under the policy, at law and in equity. Regardless, Insured’s conclusory allegations fail to place Security First on notice of any purported violations. Furthermore, the Civil Remedy Notice fails to identify how to cure the allegations set forth. The allegations are without basis. It is clear Security First properly handled and adequately investigated the claim. We hope that this response has answered any concerns regarding this matter. If the Department has any question concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Hector Gonzalez P177123 Security First Insurance Company 1001 Broadway Avenue Ormond Beach, Florida 32714 catclaims@securityfirstflorida.com Telephone Number: 386-868-1536
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