Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     803926
Filing Accepted:  1/28/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
MCCRAY   First Name   CORY
Street Address * 204 SOUTHWEST SURREAL COURT,
City, State Zip * LAKE CITY, FL 32024
Email Address * MEGAN@GREENLAWGRP.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   MCCRAY   First Name   CORY
Policy # * PO13201988 Claim #* 250580
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* GREEN JR. First Name * PAUL H. Initial
Street Address* 8833 PERIMETER PARK BLVD., , STE. 104
City, State Zip* JACKSOVILLE , FLORIDA 32216
Email Address * MEGAN@GREENLAWGRP.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):* ERENA FRABIZIO AND ALL SUPERVISORS
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
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)(e) Failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and, as to partial coverage, the dollar amount or extent of coverage, or failing to provide a written statement that the claim is being investigated, upon the written request of the insured within 30 days after proof-of-loss statements have been completed.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f) Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of the basis in the insurance policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g) Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h) Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

See below
 
* 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 August 30, 2023, Robert and Merly Sepulveda (hereinafter “INSURED”), suffered damage to their property located at 204 Southwest Surreal Court, Lake City, FL 32024. The property suffered extensive damage to the roof. Security First Insurance Company (hereinafter “SECURITY”) issued an insurance policy for the Insured’s property, Policy Number PO13201988, which was in full force and effect on the date of the loss. The loss was the result of a significant windstorm. Shortly following the loss, the Insured retained the Law Offices of Paul Green (hereinafter “FIRM”) to help expedite the claim in order to restore the property to its pre-loss condition. FIRM timely notified SECURITY of the damages sustained to the property and contemporaneously provided an estimate of the damages sought to be recovered. Despite demand of payment, SECURITY has failed or refused to pay full value to protect and return property to pre-loss conditions. SECURITY's refusal to adequately and otherwise make INSURED whole, constitutes a breach of contract. As a result of SECURITY’s aforementioned breach of contract, it has become necessary for INSURED to retain the services of FIRM. SECURITY has engaged in a customary business practice and a deliberate course of conduct to hinder resolution of its claims until they enter litigation. SECURITY regularly and consistently denies justified claims outright, omits or denies specific line items required to properly repair/replace a homeowner’s roof, and uses deceptive tactics, some, aforementioned, to prolong the process, in a hope that the homeowner will cancel his retainer with the FIRM and deal directly with SECURITY. SECURITY has now engaged in unscrupulous behavior by way of “right to repair” language added to their homeowner’s policies amounting to adhesion contracts with little or no ability for their insureds to object to having subpar work done to their home, failing to properly restore their property to its pre-loss state. Adjusters at SECURITY have stated that the process by which they are instructed to handle claims is that if an Insured submits an estimate for damages and it is above a set amount per roofing square, the adjuster will argue right to repair and use a lowball “preferred” vendor instead of the contractor the Insured has chosen. Interestingly, SECURITY has also stated that sometimes they do this just to “improve their negotiating power”, knowing full well that SECURITY will pay the contractor the Insured has chosen but for less than is needed to properly restore the property. SECURITY does this in bad faith as it has no desire to negotiate a proper payout to secure the Insured’s property. It has become a pattern of practice for SECURITY to not settle claims when it has the ability to do so and these dilatory tactics serve no purpose other than to increase profits. SECURITY has violated the following statutory provisions: §642.155(1)(b)(1) - Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly towards its insured and with due regards 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 reasonable clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlement under other provisions 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) – Committing or performing with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice any of the following: (a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims; (b) Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue; (c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims; (d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information; (e) Failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and, as to partial coverage, the dollar amount or extent of coverage, or failing to provide a written statement that the claim is being investigated, upon the written request of the insured with 30 days after proof-of-loss statements have been completed; (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; (g) Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim; (h) Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary. To remedy this Civil Remedy Notice and to cure the conduct giving rise to the violations described herein, SECURITY must immediately: (i) tender the full remaining payment to FIRM, on behalf of INSURED; (ii) make payment of any pre-judgment interest owed under Florida law, including §627.70131(5)(a), which is accruing daily; (iii) make payment for the additional expense incurred by the insured in hiring an attorney; and (iv) implement appropriate standards and procedures for claims investigations and resolution in regard to the outstanding amount of this Claim. The aforementioned payments should be tendered to the INSURED’s attorneys at Law Offices of Paul Green, 8833 Perimeter Park Blvd., Suite 104, Jacksonville, Florida 32216.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
erena.frabizio@securityfirstflorida.com 03-24-2025 03/24/25 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: Paul H. Green Jr. 8833 Perimeter Park Blvd., Ste 104, Jacksonville, FL 32216 megan@greenlawgrp.com Re: CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE OF INSURER VIOLATION Filing No.: 803926 Insured: Cory McCray and Jenalyn McCray Insurer: Security First Insurance Company Claim No.: 250580 Policy No.: P013201988 Date of Loss: 08/30/23 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 Cory McCray and Jenalyn McCray (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 01/28/23 and DFS File No.: 803926. This matter concerns a property damage claim made by the Insured pursuant to a homeowners’ insurance policy provided by Security First Policy No. P013201988 and assigned Claim No. 250580. As the basis for filing the CRN against Security First, Cory McCray and Jenalyn McCray assert in the “Reasons for Notice” section violations such as Claim Delay along with the following statutory violations: 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)(e) Failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and, as to partial coverage, the dollar amount or extent of coverage, or failing to provide a written statement that the claim is being investigated, upon the written request of the insured within 30 days after proof-of-loss statements have been completed. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f) Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of the basis in the insurance policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g) Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h) Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary. 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. Security First received notice on September 01, 2023, for the alleged loss that occurred on August 30, 2023. SFIC promptly contacted the insured, requested inspections, and sent out a communication acknowledging receipt of the claim. The subject property was inspected timely, including by a licensed roofing contractor to assess all reported damages. A detailed coverage determination along with payment was also sent in writing on November 09, 2023. A supplemental determination and payment was issued on December 15, 2023. 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 Cathy Crossman 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, _______________________ Erena Frabizio License #W782134 Security First Insurance Company 1001 Broadway Avenue Ormond Beach, Florida 32714 Erena.Frabizio@SecurityFirstFlorida.com Telephone Number: 386-492-0080
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