Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     803795
Filing Accepted:  1/28/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
FREEMAN   First Name   JOHN AND KHANTHAROTH NICOLE
Street Address * C/O CARRINGTON JONES, ESQ 3333 S. ORANGE AVE, SUITE 104
City, State Zip * ORLANDO, FL 32806
Email Address * CARRINGTON@MYLAWYERCAN.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   FREEMAN   First Name   JOHN AND KHANTHAROTH NICOLE
Policy # * 59-CY-Y648-2 Claim #* 59-75N349S
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* JONES First Name * CARRINGTON Initial E
Street Address* 3333 S. ORANGE AVE, SUITE 104
City, State Zip* ORLANDO , FL 32806
Email Address * CARRINGTON@MYLAWYERCAN.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):* ABIODUN DAVIES
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Unfair Trade Practice
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)(2) A material misrepresentation made to an insured or any other person having an interest in the proceeds payable under such contract or policy, for the purpose and with the intent of effecting settlement of such claims, loss, or damage under such contract or policy on less favorable terms than those provided in, and contemplated by, such contract or policy.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g) Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim.
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).
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i) Failing to pay personal injury protection insurance claims within the time periods required by s. 627.736(4)(b).
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

State Farm Florida Insurance Company policy 59-CY-Y648-2 provides coverage to John Freeman and Khantharoth Nicole Freeman for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage A. As such, this is an “all perils” policy and all such losses described above are covered unless they are specifically excluded.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

On or about October 10, 2024, John Freeman and Khantharoth Nicole Freeman (“Insureds”) suffered significant Hurricane Milton damage to their home located at 31931 Geoff Way, Sorrento, FL 32776. Prior to the loss, State Farm Florida Insurance Company policy 59-CY-Y648-2 provides coverage to John Freeman and Khantharoth Nicole Freeman for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage A. As such, this is an “all perils” policy and all such losses described above are covered unless they are specifically excluded. State Farm Florida Insurance Company issued a homeowner’s insurance policy (policy no. 59-CY-Y648-2) for the Insureds’ home. The policy was in effect on the date of loss and affords coverage for Hurricane Milton damage. After providing notice of the loss, the insureds cooperated with State Farm Florida Insurance Company policy 59-CY-Y648-2 provides coverage to John Freeman and Khantharoth Nicole Freeman for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage A and under the policy. As such, this is an “all perils” policy and all such losses described above are covered unless they are specifically excluded. The Insured(s) cooperated with the investigation of the claim and allowed State Farm Florida Insurance Company to inspect the damages on 10/31/2024. Despite State Farm Florida Insurance Company acknowledging a significant amount of covered damage, State Farm Florida Insurance Company refused to tender full payment to bring the insureds to pre-loss condition. This is a pattern and practice of State Farm Florida Insurance Company, finding that an Insureds damages fell below their deductible and or significant under valuing damages. The insureds home have sustained significant damage which far exceeds their deductible. Specifically the insureds known damage total $59,551.63. Fla. Stat. § 624.155. Fla. Stat. 624.155 provides a cause of action for bad faith in first-party claims. Fridman v. Safeco Ins. Co., 185 So. 3d 1214, 1220 (Fla. 2016). These first-party claims are treated the same as third-party claims. Id. at 1221. The question of whether an insurer acted in bad faith is determined by the “totality of the circumstances” standard. Berges v. Infinity Ins. Co., 896 So. 2d 665, 680 (Fla. 2004). This inquiry focuses on the actions of the insurer. Id. at 677. The insurer has a duty to use the degree of care and diligence as a person of ordinary care. Bos. Old Colony Ins. Co. v. Gutierrez, 386 So. 2d 783, 785 (Fla. 1980). The insurer must investigate the facts, give fair consideration to all settlement offers, and settle when a reasonable prudent person would. Id. Additionally, an insurer must not act solely in their own interest in settlement. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. LaForet, 658 So.2d 55, 58 (Fla. 1995). Furthermore, the insurer has the burden to show that there was no realistic possibility of settlement. Powell v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 584 So. 2d 12, 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). 624.155(1)(b) claims: [624.155(1)(b)(1)]: Insurer, State Farm Florida Insurance Company, acted in bad faith under Fla. Stat. 624.155(1)(b)(1) in their dealings with the Insureds by failing to attempt to settle the Insureds’ claims when it could and should have done so had it acted fairly and honestly toward the insured. As such, the insurer must promptly and immediately settle the claim. 624.155(1)(a)(1) claims: Fla. Stat. § 624.155(1)(a)(1) grants a cause of action against an insurer for unfair insurance trade practices under Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i). Contrary to the language of the statute, a remedy exists even “without proof that the insurer committed unfair or deceptive acts with such frequency as to constitute a general business practice.” Dadeland Depot, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 945 So. 2d 1216, 1232 (Fla. 2006). Here, State Farm Florida Insurance Company’s actions constituted bad faith under 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a). [626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a)]: Pursuant to Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), an insurer must adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. Plaintiff may bring a civil action for damages caused by the failure to adopt such standards. Fla. Stat. § 624.155(1)(a)(1). Here, the facts of this loss investigation indicate that Insurer does not have adequate standards for the proper investigation of claims. Here, Insurer has failed to assign competent and unbiased claims personnel. State Farm Florida Insurance Company has not acted honestly or fairly towards its Insureds. State Farm Florida Insurance Company policy 59-CY-Y648-2 provides coverage to John Freeman and Khantharoth Nicole Freeman for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in under coverage A and the policy in its entirety. As such, this is an “all perils” policy and all such losses described above are covered unless they are specifically excluded. State Farm Florida Insurance Company and its adjusters misrepresented the scope and cause of damages to the residence and misapplied exclusions in the policy, namely wear and tear, and “long term” damage, in order to deny or underpay coverage for the majority of the Insureds claim in order to ensure its valuation of the claim would be significantly less than the cost of repair. As is the case here, it has become a general business practice of State Farm Florida Insurance Company to not implement proper claims handling procedures, to hire consultants that routinely ignore or intentionally misidentify relevant evidence, and to not settle claims in good faith when under all circumstances it should have. State Farm Florida Insurance Company regularly undervalues claims in order to avoid issuing payment on losses that it knows are covered under the policy. State Farm Florida Insurance Company also routinely refuses to pay claims in full when it has the ability to do so, waits to see if its insureds contest their coverage determination, as was necessary here, and, only then, will it capriciously invoke appraisal. State Farm Florida Insurance Company knows that by opening up a small amount of coverage, it can maintain its ability to demand appraisal later on and deprive its Insured access to the courts. Its insureds are then forced to pay the cost of their own appraiser and potentially an umpire, which can total several thousands of dollars, before it is ever willing to perform repairs or issue benefits that were already owed under the policy. State Farm Florida Insurance Company has developed this deliberate strategy in order to deter its Insureds from challenging its coverage determinations and hinder their ability to seek additional payment for monies owed under the policy. State Farm Florida Insurance Company’s practice of not adjusting losses in good faith in accordance with section 627.70131, Florida Statues, unnecessarily delays resolution of its claims and leaves claimants like the Insureds with no choice but to incur further time and expense just to be fully indemnified pursuant to the terms of their contract with State Farm Florida Insurance Company. State Farm Florida Insurance Company has completely abdicated its duty to adjust and has put the onus on its Insureds to spend thousands of dollars in appraisal before State Farm Florida Insurance Company is willing to issue benefits or make repairs that it knows are owed pursuant to the policy. State Farm Florida Insurance Company’s pattern and practice of underrepresenting the actual cost and cause of damages, then demanding appraisal if challenged, is evidence that it does not act fairly or honestly towards the Insured during its adjustment process and that it has failed to implement proper standards for the investigation and handling of its claims. State Farm Florida Insurance Company did not apply appropriate standards in order to properly investigate claims such as the Loss at the Home, which ultimately led to its unfair and dishonest adjustment of the Loss. State Farm Florida Insurance Company has implemented a strategy and approach to the Loss that is unfair and has not attempted to settle the Loss that that the Insured has suffered and continues to suffer. State Farm Florida Insurance Company can cure its bad faith conduct by: 1) accepting the insured’s claim as compensable, and agreeing to pay the claim in accordance with its loss settlement provision prior to the expiration of the cure period, 2) reaching an amicable settlement of the pending claim prior to the expiration of the cure period, or 3) paying the amount of the estimate for damages ($59,551.63) submitted by the insured to State Farm Florida Insurance Company less the insured’s deductible. By doing any of these three things, the insurer will cure its bad faith in this case and extinguish any and all of its liability for all bad faith damages which could be sought pursuant to this Civil Remedy Notice.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
jessica.dill@kubickidraper.com 03-14-2025 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING THROUGH: WWW.FLDFS.COM (CIVIL REMEDY SYSTEM) AND BY CERTIFIED MAIL AND EMAIL TO: John and Khantharoth Nicole Freeman C/O Carrington E. Jones, Esq. The Law Offices of Carrington Jones, PLLC 3333 S. Orange Ave., Suite 104 Orlando, Florida 32806 Carrington@mylawyercan.com Civil Remedy Notice Response DFS File No.: 803795 Complainant: John and Khantharoth Nicole Freeman Insured: John and Khantharoth Nicole Freeman Policy Number: 59-CY-Y648-2 Claim Number: 59-75N349S Date CRN filed: 1/28/2025 Our File No.: 0209537 Dear Mr. Jones: Undersigned counsel and the law firm of Kubicki Draper represent State Farm Florida Insurance Company (“State Farm”) with regard to the above-referenced claim. This shall serve as State Farm’s response to the “Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations” (“CRN”), filed by or on behalf of Complainants, John and Khantharoth Nicole Freeman (hereinafter “Complainants” or “Insureds”), with the Florida Department of Financial Services (DFS) on January 28, 2025. The subject CRN arises from a Hurricane Milton claim that was first reported to State Farm on or about October 17, 2024 by Complainants’ public adjuster, for an alleged date of loss of October 10, 2024. State Farm promptly acknowledged the claim and informed Complainants of their Homeowner Claims Bill of Rights as well as certain duties after loss according to the policy. About two weeks after the initial reporting, State Farm’s retained licensed inspector inspected the subject property. Based on the inspection of the property as well as estimates, sworn proof of loss, and information provided, State Farm found that the claimed damages were largely due to preexisting, long-term causes like wear/tear, deterioration, and/or other such causes that would not be covered by the policy. Accordingly, State Farm was unable to issue payment on this claim, as the cost to repair any covered damages was less than the policy deductible. State Farm timely issued its decision letter, which explained the basis for the claim decision and cited pertinent policy provisions. Complainants were also advised of their right to request mediation through DFS if they disagreed with the claim decision. State Farm additionally acknowledged receipt of the sworn proof of loss, but disagreed with the amounts claimed detailing the policy provisions accordingly. DFS mediation was conducted and resulted in impasse. Complainants then filed a Notice of Intent to Litigate (“Notice”) as well as the subject CRN. State Farm timely responded to the Notice. Now, State Farm is timely responding to this CRN in accordance with §624.155. As will be discussed, State Farm has at all times handled this matter in good faith. Complainants’ disagreement regarding the claim decision or price/scope of covered damages is not a valid basis to claim otherwise. The section of the CRN that is required to identify “all statutory provisions alleged to have been violated[,]” claims State Farm allegedly violated the following provisions in handling this claim: §624.155(1)(b)(1), Fla. Stat., “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), Fla. Stat., “Except as to liability coverages, failing to promptly settle claims, when the obligation to settle a claim has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage[;]” §626.9541(1)(i)(2), Fla. Stat., “A material misrepresentation made to an insured or any other person having an interest in the proceeds payable under such contract or policy, for the purpose and with the intent of effecting settlement of such claims, loss, or damage under such contract or policy on less favorable terms than those provided in, and contemplated by, such contract or policy[;]” §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), Fla. Stat., “Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims[;]” §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), Fla. Stat., “Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue[;]” §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), Fla. Stat., “Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims[;]” §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), Fla. Stat., “Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information[;]” §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g), Fla. Stat., “Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim[;]” §626.9541(1)(i)(4), Fla. Stat., “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 insure as defined in s. 627.70131(5)[;]” and §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i), Fla. Stat., “Failing to pay personal injury protection insurance claims within the time periods required by s. 627.736(4)(b).” Notably, this is not a claim for personal injury protection (“PIP”) benefits, so State Farm could not have violated §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i). Regardless, State Farm denies it has violated any of the cited provisions or any other statutory provisions in handling this claim. More specifically, State Farm denies it violated: §624.155(1)(b)(1), Fla. Stat. As further discussed herein, and contrary to what the CRN claims, State Farm has acted reasonably, fairly, honestly, promptly, and in good faith in its efforts to adjust, and resolve this claim based on its investigation and the information available. Complainants provide no factual support or explanation for their allegation that State Farm did not attempt in good faith to settle their claim. State Farm also denies that it violated: §624.155(1)(b)(3), Fla. Stat. As further discussed herein, and contrary to what the CRN claims, State Farm has not attempted to settle one portion of the policy to influence settlement under another portion of the policy. Complainants provide no factual support or explanation for their allegation State Farm failed to promptly settle their claim once the obligation became reasonably clear under one portion of the policy so as to influence settlement under other portions of the policy. It further appears this statutory provision would be largely inapplicable, or at least irrelevant, to this specific claim. State Farm also denies that it violated: §626.9541(1)(i)(2), Fla. Stat. and §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), Fla. Stat. As further discussed herein, and contrary to what the CRN claims, State Farm has not made any material misrepresentations for the purpose and with the intent to effectuate settlement on less than favorable terms than those provided in and contemplated by the policy. State Farm has also not misrepresented any facts, insurance policy provisions, or anything else. Moreover, the body of the CRN claims State Farm misrepresented the scope of the damages. None of these allegations are supported by any claim specific facts or explanation in the CRN. State Farm timely issued its claim decision within 60 days and found the cost to repair any covered damages fell below the policy’s deductible according to the terms of the policy based on its inspection and investigation. Complainants have not provided anything that might substantiate the claimed causation and/or that might warrant any increased price/scope of their claimed damages. State Farm also denies it violated: §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), Fla. Stat. As further discussed herein, and contrary to what the CRN claims, State Farm has implemented reasonable standards and procedures for the proper investigation, handling, and adjustment of claims, and State Farm properly investigated this claim. State Farm also denies it violated: §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), Fla. Stat. As further discussed herein, and contrary to what the CRN claims, State Farm acknowledged and acted promptly on communications with respect to this claim. Additionally, the body of the CRN provides no detail as to which communication was unacknowledged or not timely responded to, and indeed, contains no allegations concerning the supposedly delayed/deficient communication by State Farm whatsoever. There is absolutely no factual support or explanation for this claimed violation of the law. State Farm also denies it violated: §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), Fla. Stat. As further discussed herein, and contrary to what the CRN claims, State Farm has not denied the claim without conducting a reasonable investigation from the available information. In fact, State Farm timely issued its claim decision within 60 days and found that the cost to repair any covered damages fell below the policy’s deductible according to the terms of the policy based on its inspection and investigation. As such, the claim was not denied and there is absolutely no factual support or explanation for this claimed violation of the law. State Farm also denies it violated: §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g), Fla. Stat. As further discussed herein, and contrary to what the CRN claims, State Farm promptly notified Complainants of any additional information needed, if needed for processing the claim. Additionally, the body of the CRN provides no detail as to which communication failed to request additional information, and indeed, contains no allegations concerning delayed/deficient communication by State Farm whatsoever. There is absolutely no factual support or explanation for this claimed violation of the law. State Farm also denies it violated: §626.9541(1)(i)(4), Fla. Stat. As further discussed herein, and contrary to what the CRN claims, State Farm timely issued its claim decision within 60 days and found that the cost to repair any covered damages fell below the policy’s deductible according to the terms of the policy based on its inspection and investigation. There is absolutely no factual support or explanation for this claimed violation of the law. State Farm also denies it violated: §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i), Fla. Stat. This statutory violation pertains to untimely payment of PIP claims, and has no bearing whatsoever on the instant claim. The same is self-evident and strongly indicates that this is a boilerplate, generic CRN with no meaningful claim-specific facts. In addition, State Farm denies the CRN’s allegations in the “Reasons for Notice,” including denying any improper: claim delay or unfair trade practice. State Farm denies all of these allegations. Contrary to all such allegations in the CRN, State Farm has acted reasonably, fairly, honestly, promptly, and in good faith in its efforts to investigate, adjust, and resolve this claim. State Farm’s claim decision was made promptly and after investigation, based on the available information, and in accordance with the policy and Florida law. Complainants’ disagreement with the claim decision is not evidence of bad faith. In addition, State Farm objects that allegations such as the foregoing in the CRN are totally lacking in any meaningful specificity, factual basis, and/or explanation, as required by §624.155, which invalidates the CRN. Moreover, State Farm respectfully and categorically denies without limitation each and every allegation of Complainants within the CRN, including but not limited to denying the alleged violations of the cited provisions of Florida law. State Farm also denies any and all stated, implied, and/or unspecified allegations, including but not limited to denying any claim delay, unsatisfactory settlement offers, unfair trade practices, not attempting in good faith to settle claims, failing to adopt and implement standards for proper investigation, making misrepresentations, failing to acknowledge and act promptly on communications, denying claims without conducting reasonable investigation, failing to affirm or deny coverage, failure to promptly or properly provide reasonable explanations, failing to promptly give notice of additional information needed to process the claim, failing to timely adjust and issue a decision on the claim, and the like, whether or not specifically alleged by the CRN. State Farm has not violated any applicable provision of Florida law in handling this claim. As noted above, State Farm also objects to the CRN based on multiple defects, which render the CRN invalid. For example, the CRN fails to comply with §624.155(3)(b), Fla. Stat., which requires the CRN to specify the facts and circumstances giving rise to the alleged violations, the statutory provisions allegedly violated, as well as the relevant policy language at issue in the alleged violations. All such requirements must be strictly construed and complied with, as a claim for first-party bad faith does not exist apart from §624.155 creating it. This was confirmed by the appellate court’s decision in Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (on rehearing), where the Fourth District held that a CRN is invalid and precludes a bad faith claim where, as here, it fails to strictly comply with the specificity and other requirements of the statute. The CRN here is likewise invalid. For example, the section of the CRN that is required to reference “specific policy language that is relevant to the violation,” fails or refuses to reference any policy language at all. This is the opposite of the specificity required by §624.155 and Florida law. Given that Complainants’ own policy is at issue, there is no excuse for failing to reference the relevant provisions. The CRN accuses State Farm of making unspecified “misrepresentations” regarding the policy and coverage, but fails to identify any policy provisions that were purportedly misrepresented. It also repeatedly asserts that the basis for the CRN is the allegedly “wrongful” denial of payment on this claim and disagreement with the under-deductible decision. In fact, that is the main basis for the CRN. Thus, indisputably there must be policy language relevant to the CRN. This is also apparent from the assertions that State Farm allegedly must restore the property to its “pre-loss” condition. That is just not what the policy says. Rather, the policy requires accidental direct physical loss to trigger coverage, and then any coverage or payment is subject to the policy’s terms, conditions, limitations, and exclusions, together with any endorsements. Yet the CRN fails to reference or identify any specific policy provisions at all. The defects are clearly prejudicial. The CRN offers no basis or policy provisions that might alter or warrant reconsideration of State Farm’s claim decision. The CRN also wholly fails to explain how State Farm allegedly breached any provisions of the subject policy or how any provisions of the policy relate to the subject claim or alleged bad faith statutory violations. This CRN literally forces State Farm to “guess” what policy provisions Complainants believe were allegedly violated or breached and why. An insurer cannot be forced to “guess” about these or any other matters. The CRN is therefore invalid. The CRN is therefore invalid for lack of specificity, ambiguity and/or failure to comply with the requirements of §624.155 and Florida law. Compounding all of this, effective December 16, 2022, Complainants must obtain an adverse adjudication that State Farm breached the insurance contract as a prerequisite to bringing an action for extra-contractual damages under §624.155(1)(b). See §624.1551, Fla. Stat. (amended effective 12/16/22). Yet, this CRN totally fails to identify what if any policy provisions State Farm allegedly breached or violated. Further confirming the prejudice, the subject policy was issued after the tort reform bill that was enacted effective March 24, 2023 (HB837), and well after the prior amendments that were enacted effective December 16, 2022 (SB-2A). As a result, all of those statutory changes clearly apply to the subject policy and claim, as will any other relevant amendments that preceded the issuance of this policy. This solidifies the conclusion the CRN is invalid and without merit. State Farm further objects to the CRN, and the CRN is defective additionally because it lacks sufficient specificity with regard to the alleged statutory violations, which, again, is expressly required by §624.155(3)(b), Fla. Stat. For example, the CRN fails to adequately identify or explain how State Farm violated the provisions of Florida law cited in the CRN, how the alleged violations relate to the facts of the specific claim, and/or what actions and amount(s) are being demanded or the basis for demanding any such actions/amounts. As noted above, the CRN lists a number of statutory provisions that were allegedly violated, including a provision relating to PIP benefits which obviously has no application to this homeowners’ claim. The body of the CRN then lists some of the same provisions, still with no meaningful explanation. The body of the CRN also adds reference to additional statutory provisions not identified where required earlier in the CRN, and still with no explanation. In fact, despite citing several statutory provisions, the CRN fails to explain how any statutory provisions were allegedly violated or how they relate to this claim. The CRN is replete with conclusory assertions unsupported by any meaningful factual basis. Additionally, the CRN fails to explain how State Farm’s investigation was allegedly deficient and fails to give any claim specific facts which might shed some light on the boilerplate, baseless accusations. Again, no information is provided which might enable State Farm to reconsider its claim decision. The vague, conclusory nature of the allegations leaves State Farm to guess as to the basis for the numerous alleged statutory violations being claimed. This is prejudicial to State Farm and invalidates the CRN. The CRN also cites several cases with no explanation as to how they relate to the subject claim or CRN. The boilerplate reference to case law and various statutes underscores the boilerplate nature of this CRN, which despite its length has few if any claim specific facts. Rather, it largely parrots various statutory provisions, cites general case law with no discernible relevance, and repeats the same generic allegations over and again throughout the CRN. This CRN clearly fails to provide meaningful notice of the alleged statutory violations, let alone the alleged policy breaches, forming the basis for this CRN. This solidifies the conclusion this CRN is invalid. In addition, the CRN makes improper demands which likewise invalidate the CRN for lack of specificity and/or as contrary to Florida law. For example, the CRN implicitly demands that State Farm must allegedly pay (unspecified) extra-contractual damages as a purported condition of curing this matter. The demand is apparent, for example: (a) from the fact that the CRN claims the insured was forced to pay costs possibly associated with appraisal, (b) the assertions that she is entitled to restore the property to its “pre-loss” condition, when that is not required by this policy, but rather, coverage and payment are limited by the express terms of the policy, (c) that she allegedly has suffered and continues to suffer, and (d) the assertions that State Farm has purportedly “put the onus on the Insureds to spend thousands of dollars” out-of-pocket to obtain claim payment by appraisal or otherwise. By these allegations Complainants in substance are asserting entitlement to attorney’s fees, costs, and/or other such extra-contractual damages. However, Florida law does not impose on an insurer the obligation to pay whatever the insured or claimant demands. Rather, in a first-party matter such as this an insurer is only required to pay the contractual amount still owed under the policy—if any. Thus, any demand that the insurer must purportedly pay any type of extra-contractual damages as to bad faith, costs, or the like renders the CRN invalid on its face. At a minimum, the CRN is ambiguous as to whether extra-contractual damages are being demanded. The result is the same: The CRN is invalid. Without question, the CRN falls far short of the specificity and other requirements of the statute and is therefore invalid. The CRN fails to give State Farm meaningful notice of the alleged policy breaches and statutory violations, and it thereby thwarts the ability to fully respond or cure this claim in response to the CRN. This contravenes the purpose and requirements of Florida law, including the notice and safe harbor or “cure” provisions of §624.155, Fla. Stat., which are a necessary prerequisite to any future bad faith action. See, e.g., Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). Thus, due to the lack of specificity of the CRN and other defects, the CRN is invalid and cannot serve as a condition precedent to any action for alleged bad faith under §624.155, Fla. Stat., or otherwise under Florida law. Thus, due to the lack of specificity of the CRN and other defects, the CRN is invalid and cannot serve as a condition precedent to any action for alleged bad faith under §624.155, Fla. Stat., or otherwise under Florida law. Subject to and without waiving these denials and objections and any other available defenses, State Farm states that it has not violated any applicable provision of Florida law in handling this claim or in any way related to this claim. Rather, State Farm has at all times acted in good faith, fairly, honestly, and with reasonable diligence in its handling and investigation of the claim, including with regard to any claim decisions made with respect to the alleged losses or in any way related to this matter. State Farm has at all times been, and continues to be, open to communication with the Complainants and/or their representatives regarding this matter. State Farm remains willing to review and consider any additional information which Complainants believe to be relevant to this matter and requests that any such additional information or documentation be provided immediately. State Farm will evaluate any additional information or documentation it receives in good faith. State Farm has at all times handled this claim in good faith and is continuing to handle it in good faith. The foregoing provides examples but is not exhaustive. In any event, the allegations in the CRN amount, at most, to a mere disagreement regarding the price and scope of claimed damages, the cause of loss, and/or the scope of coverage for the alleged losses. Disagreement regarding such matters is not bad faith and cannot serve as a basis for any future bad faith claim against State Farm. Accordingly, State Farm denies the allegations of the CRN and objects to the CRN as invalid. The denials and objections herein are not necessarily exhaustive and this response shall not prevent State Farm from asserting any other appropriate objections, denials, and/or defenses related to this claim and/or CRN. As a final matter, it should be emphasized that the subject policy issued by State Farm is governed by the policy’s terms, conditions, limitations and exclusions together with any endorsements. This CRN response does not waive any provisions of the policy. Furthermore, any action taken by or on behalf of State Farm or its authorized representative(s), whether in the past or future, to investigate the alleged loss, to adjust any claim or request for payment, or in any way related to or arising out of the subject claim or loss, shall not waive any provisions of the policy. Thank you for your time and attention in this matter. Please contact us if you have any questions or require additional information. Very truly yours, /s/ Lindsey N. Hinton Lindsey N. Hinton, Esq. Kubicki Draper, PA Counsel for State Farm
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