Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     803964
Filing Accepted:  1/28/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
GILLEN   First Name   EILEEN AND BRIAN
Street Address * 1110 93RD ST NW
City, State Zip * BRADENTON, FL 34209
Email Address * WITHHELD
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   GILLEN   First Name   EILEEN AND BRIAN
Policy # * SJ31153919 Claim #* 202410012129
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* DANIELS First Name * MONICA Initial E
Street Address* 560 VILLAGE BOULEVARD, SUITE 110
City, State Zip* WEST PALM BEACH , FLORIDA 33409
Email Address * MDANIELS@THEDANIELS-LAWGROUP.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   SLIDE INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 17227
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* ANDREA POPE, KRISTY BASSA, ROBERT FAZIO, AND ANY AND ALL ADJUSTERS, MANAGERS, SUPERVISORS, AND INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CLAIM.
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)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
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.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

SECTION I – PROPERTY COVERAGES A. Coverage A – Dwelling 1. We cover: a. The dwelling on the “residence premises” shown in the Declarations, including structures attached to the dwelling. SECTION I – PERILS INSURED AGAINST A. Coverage A – Dwelling And Coverage B – Other Structures 1. We insure against risk of direct physical loss to property described in Coverages A and B. SECTION I – CONDITIONS I. Loss Payment. We will adjust all losses with you.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Eileen Gillen and Brian Gillen (the “Insureds”) purchased an insurance policy from Slide Insurance Company (“Insurer”), with Policy number SJ31153919 (the “Policy”), to cover their property located at 1110 93rd St NW, Bradenton, FL 34209 (the “Property”). On October 9, 2024, Hurricane Milton struck the Property. The excessive winds from Milton caused damage to the roof and various exterior elements of the Property, which necessitate the following repairs to return the Property to its pre-loss condition: gutters, stucco, exterior painting, exterior lights, garage door, screen enclosure, pavers, pool, awning, and fence. Milton also caused damage to the interior of the Property necessitating repairs in the following areas to return the Property to its pre-loss condition: living room, dining room, kitchen, office, hallway, entryway, and a guest bedroom and closets. The Insureds immediately reported the loss to Insurer, mitigated the damages, and complied with all applicable post-loss obligations. They also hired a public adjuster to assist them with their damages and the claims process. The Insurer assigned claim number 202410012129 (the “Claim”) to the claim. The Insurer inspected the Property and prepared a woefully deficient initial estimate that failed to address the full scope of damages and repairs necessary to return the Property to its pre-loss condition. The Insurer’s evaluation of the Property’s loss was insultingly low given the observable damages. Among other things, the Insurer failed to render any coverage for the interior damages sustained at the Property. The Insureds provided the Insurer with a true and accurate estimate of the related damages, extensive photographs of the damages, and complied with all of the Insurer’s requests for documentation and information. The Insurer acknowledged coverage and admitted liability for damages to the Property. The Insureds dispute that the meager amount unilaterally determined by the Insurer is sufficient to restore their Property to its pre-loss condition. The Insureds understandably became extremely frustrated by the Insurer’s clear delay tactics, failure to properly indemnify them for this Claim in a timely fashion, and failure to adjust the Claim in good-faith. To combat any further attempts by the Insurer to delay the Claim and its failure to make the Insureds whole, the Insureds had no choice but to retain legal counsel to assist with the Claim. Without sufficient funds to repair their property, the Insureds continue to suffer additional damages. The Insurer failed to make any meaningful effort to inspect the Property or adjust the Claim despite the Insureds expressing their clear disagreement with the Insurer’s handling of the Claim. Despite providing all necessary documentation to the Insurer to make good on its duty to restore the Insureds to their pre-loss condition, Insurer grossly undervalued the claim and only contemplated a fraction of the amount of Insureds’ damages. The scope of the damages considered by the Insurer is an insult to the Insureds and is far less money than necessary to complete the repairs to their Property. The Insurer’s refusal to properly investigate, adjust and fully compensate the Insureds for this Claim undoubtedly evidences the Insurer’s violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), Florida Statutes, which requires the Insurer to “adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.” All available information leads to one conclusion – the Property was damaged by a covered cause of loss for which the Insureds are entitled to full and complete compensation. The Insurer’s obligation to promptly settle the Insureds’ claim is undeniable, and therefore, the Insurer has also violated Fla. Stat. Section 624.155(1)(b)(1) and 624.155(1)(b)(3). The Insurer’s conduct continues to be egregious because the Insurer retained biased and inexperienced individuals who approached the loss with an eye towards underpayment. The actions taken by the Insurer in the handling and adjustment of the Claim are willful, wanton, and in disregard for the rights of the Insureds, and have occurred with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice in violation of the law. This practice includes the Insurer hiring biased and inexperienced adjusters and failing to properly and timely pay for obvious damages owed to its Insureds. The Insurer’s actions amount to, but are not limited to: A. “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 the insured and with due regard for her or his interests;” B. “Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue”; C. “Except as to liability coverages, failing to promptly settle claims, when the obligation to settle a claim has become reasonably clear;” D. “Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims;” E. Claim Delay; F. Unsatisfactory Settlement Offers; and G. Unfair Trade Practices. In addition to the above statutory violations, the Insurer’s adjuster violated the following ethical requirements of the Florida Administrative Code 69B-220.201: (3) Code of Ethics . . . An adjuster shall put the duty for fair and honest treatment of the claimant above the adjuster’s own interests in every instance. The following are standards of conduct that define ethical behavior, and shall constitute a code of ethics that shall be binding on all adjusters: (b) An adjuster shall treat all claimants equally. 2. An adjuster shall adjust all claims strictly in accordance with the insurance contract. (c) An adjuster shall not approach investigations, adjustments, and settlements in a manner prejudicial to the insured. (d) An adjuster shall make truthful and unbiased reports of the facts after making a complete investigation. (e) An adjuster shall handle every adjustment and settlement with honesty and integrity, and allow a fair adjustment or settlement to all parties without any remuneration to himself except that to which he is legally entitled. (f) An adjuster, upon undertaking the handling of a claim, shall act with dispatch and due diligence in achieving a proper disposition of the claim. (o) An adjuster shall not undertake the adjustment of any claim concerning which the adjuster is not currently competent and knowledgeable as to the terms and conditions of the insurance coverage, or which otherwise exceeds the adjuster’s current expertise. The Insureds are dutiful customers who made it a priority to pay their insurance premiums and to ensure that in such an event as the one here, their property would be covered. The Insureds timely filed their claim and fulfilled all post-loss obligations. Insurer acknowledged the loss, assigned a claim number, inspected the property, accepted coverage for the loss, and then grossly undervalued the claim. Insurer has failed to provide the Insureds with qualified representatives to ensure the claim was initially adjusted, evaluated, and paid properly. To deny the Insureds the benefit of the bargain after they have satisfied all of their obligations is morally and ethically reprehensible, and reeks of Unfair Trade Practice. Insurer is putting its profits ahead of its contractual and statutory obligations. In Florida the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. The Insurer has failed to create and implement adequate guidelines for proper investigation to evaluate claims handling and for training and supervision of employees. The Insurer has failed and/or refused to thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigate and evaluate the Insureds’ insurance claim and damages. Therefore, the Insurer breached its statutory and ethical duties, and has put profits ahead of the duties it owed to its Insureds when they most needed the insurance coverage they had paid for. Florida Statute § 624.02 defines “insurance” as a contract where one undertakes to indemnify another or pay or allow specified amounts, or determinable benefit, upon determinable contingencies. Inherent is the fact that payment must be made timely and promptly. This timely and prompt payment allows the insured to mitigate their damages and place them back to the position they were in prior to the loss, as quickly as possible. The Insurer breached this duty. The Insurer has refused and failed to tender all insurance proceeds to the Insureds upon demand. The Insurer’s refusal and/or failure to settle the insurance claim when it, under all circumstances, should have done so, is wrongful conduct. The Insurer is failing to promptly settle the Insureds’ claim as it is required to do so by contract, in order to influence settlements. To cure the defects outlined in this civil remedy notice, the Insurer must (1) immediately, and under no circumstances no later than sixty days from the date of this civil remedy notice, tender all insurance monies due and owing to the Insured under the Policy, specifically $83,760 pursuant to the public adjuster’s repair estimate, less applicable deductible and prior payment; (2) ensure that payment made would be adequate to place the Insureds and their Property back in the pre-loss condition; and (3) reimburse the Insureds’ attorney’s fees and costs, since the Insured was forced to hire legal counsel in order to receive adequate payment. Should the Insurer fail to comply with the demands set forth in this civil remedy notice, the Insurer must prepare to pay the full cost of its failure to rightfully indemnify the Insureds, including all future damages that come about as a result of the Insurer’s failure to comply with the demands set forth in this civil remedy notice. This Notice is giving in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by section 624.155(3)(b), Florida Statutes.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
mnixon@slideinsurance.com 03-19-2025 Via E-mail & Posting on DFS Website Monica E. Daniels, Esq. The Daniels Law Group 560 Village Blvd., Suite 110 West Palm Beach, FL 33409 mdaniels@thedaniels-lawgroup.com Complainant: Eileen and Brian Gillen Insured: Eileen and Brian Gillen Claim No: 202410012129 Policy No: SJ31153919 Date of loss: 10/09/2024 CRN Filing No.: 803964 Dear Ms. Daniels: Please allow this correspondence to serve as Slide Insurance Company’s (“Slide”)’s response to the Civil Remedy Notice (“CRN”) that was filed on behalf of Eileen and Brian Gillen (“Insured”). Herein, we include a brief factual history of the underlying claim and actions by Slide which reveals it has acted properly in responding to the underlying claim and in compliance with its contractual and legal obligations. Slide denies each and every allegation brought forth in the CRN and denies any wrongdoing in the handling of the underlying claim. Additionally, Slide denies violating any Florida Statute or Administrative Code as set forth more specifically herein. Moreover, Slide denies violating any provisions or duties set forth in the applicable policy of insurance. Slide further states that the facts and circumstances that are set forth in the CRN, while incomplete and misleading, do not give rise to any violation of any statute or policy provision referenced in the Notice. Furthermore, Slide challenges the validity of the CRN for lacking specificity. See, e.g., Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So.3d 875, 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (affirming dismissal for civil remedy notice’s failure to either strictly, or substantially, comply with statutory specificity requirement); Demase v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company, 351 So.3d 136, 138-39 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022) (holding that the trial court properly determined that a CRN that failed to state with specificity the relevant policy language was legally insufficient). Finally, the CRN is improper as the Insured failed to establish that Slide breached the policy of insurance, as required by Fla. Stat. § 624.1551. CLAIM FACTS The underlying claim was reported on October 14, 2024, as a related to Hurricane Milton damage. Slide promptly adjusted the loss, including but not limited to, sending Independent Adjuster Robert Fazio to inspect the insured property, and by sending Senior Building Consultant Scott Cabeza of NV5, Inc., to reinspect the insured property. Based on Slide’s continuing investigation and evaluation of the underlying claim, Slide issued its determination letter(s) and payment(s). Thus, Slide maintains that it has acted in accordance with the terms of the subject insurance policy, and the law, and has acted in good faith towards the Insured. Slide denies that it violated any statutes or committed the acts asserted in the CRN. Slide neither waives nor is estopped from asserting any and all rights that it may have in law or under the terms of the policy. Slide expressly reserves all such rights without exception or limitation. REASON FOR THE NOTICE The CRN alleges three (3) reasons for the filing of the Notice. However, no specific facts or circumstances are provided to support the allegations. Notwithstanding, Slide denies the allegations individually as follows: 1. Unfair Trade Practice: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is wholly denied. The Insured has submitted no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. The handling and administration of this claim occurred with the expediency and timeliness allowed by the statutory requirements imposed upon Slide. At no time did Slide, its agents, or its employees delay the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. The facts show that Slide acted promptly with respect to the investigation of the underlying claim and made communications as necessary to adjust the claim in a prompt and appropriate matter. Information necessary and relevant to the proceeding of the claim were communicated to the Insured or their representatives in an appropriate manner. Thus, this allegation is without basis and therefore denied. 2. Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer: Slide denies that it extended any unsatisfactory settlement offers to the Insured. Slide promptly investigated the loss and the Insured was issued payment(s) based on the investigation and evaluation of the claim. Slide asserts that it has acted in good faith towards its Insured at all times. Thus, this allegation is without basis and therefore denied. 3. Claim Delay: Slide denies any delay in the claims handling process of the underlying loss as is evident from the facts outlined above. Slide promptly acknowledged the claim and timely initiated its investigation of the loss including inspection(s) of the subject property. Slide acted in accordance with its duties and obligations pursuant to the policy of insurance and responded appropriately to information and documentation that was provided. Thus, Slide asserts that this allegation is without basis and therefore denied. ALLEGED STATUTORY VIOLATIONS The CRN alleges multiple statutory violations. However, no specific facts or circumstances are provided to support these allegations. Notwithstanding, Slide denies each and every allegation of statutory violation individually as follows: 1. 624.155(1)(b)(1): Denied. The underlying claim was investigated and adjusted in as thorough and expedient a manner as possible. Following the investigation and evaluation of the underlying claim, payment(s) were tendered. Moreover, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 2. 624.155(1)(b)(3): Denied. Slide has not failed to promptly settle the underlying claim. The underlying claim was investigated and adjusted in as thorough and expedient a manner as possible. Following the investigation and evaluation of the underlying claim, payment(s) were tendered. Accordingly, Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it.  Moreover, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 3. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Denied. This allegation is without basis. Slide has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of claims at all times during the investigation of the subject matter. The aforementioned facts demonstrate that Slide employed proper and customary claims practices in the investigation and adjustment of this claim including, but not limited to, inspection(s) of the insured property and timely communications with the Insured and their representatives. Accordingly, Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Finally, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 4. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c): Denied. This allegation is without basis. Slide has consistently acted promptly upon all communications with respect to this claim as previously outlined. Slide has adjusted the underlying loss in as thorough and expedient a manner as possible. Moreover, Slide routinely communicated with the Insured and/or their representatives regarding the underlying claim. Thus, Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Any assertions to the contrary are unsupported by the facts. 5. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f): Denied. Slide did not fail to provide an explanation for its denial of the claim. Slide has conducted a reasonable investigation of the reported loss as referenced in the factual narrative above. Slide did not deny the underlying claim, but instead issued payment(s). Thus, there is simply no support for this allegation and Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Finally, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 6. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g): Denied.  This allegation is without basis.  Slide promptly notified the Insured and/or their representatives regarding the pertinent claim facts and information needed relating to the claim. Slide’s numerous communications prove this fact.  Accordingly, Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it.  Finally, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. ALLEGED FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE VIOLATIONS The CRN alleges multiple violations of the Florida Administrative Code. However, no specific facts or circumstances are provided to support these allegations. Notwithstanding, Slide denies each and every allegation of violating the Florida Administrative Code individually as follows: 1. 69B-220.201(3): Denied. Slide’s adjusters have at all times acted fairly and honestly towards the Insured in the adjustment of the underlying claim. Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the requirements of this section of the administrative code. The Insured’s assertions to the contrary are unsupported by the facts. 2. 69B-220.201(3)(b): Denied. Slide’s adjusters have at all times acted fairly and honestly towards the Insured in the adjustment of the underlying claim, treating all claimants equally. Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the requirements of this section of the administrative code. The Insured’s assertions to the contrary are unsupported by the facts. 3. 69B-220.201(3)(b)2. Denied. Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the requirements of this section of the administrative code. Slide adjusted this claim strictly in accordance with the insurance contract. The Insured’s assertions to the contrary are unsupported by the facts. 4. 69B-220.201(3)(c): Denied. Slide’s adjusters have at all times acted fairly and honestly towards the Insured in the adjustment of the underlying claim, treating all claimants equally. Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the requirements of this section of the administrative code. The Insured’s assertions to the contrary are unsupported by the facts. 5. 69B-220.201(3)(d): Denied. Slide’s adjusters have at all times acted fairly and honestly towards the Insured in the adjustment of the underlying claim. Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the requirements of this section of the administrative code. The Insured’s assertions to the contrary are unsupported by the facts. 6. 69B-220.201(3)(e): Denied. Slide’s adjusters have at all times acted fairly and honestly towards the Insured in the adjustment of the underlying claim. Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the requirements of this section of the administrative code. The Insured’s assertions to the contrary are unsupported by the facts. 7. 69B-220.201(3)(f): Denied. Slide’s adjusters have at all times acted fairly and honestly towards the Insured in the adjustment of the underlying claim. Slide’s adjusters have also acted with due diligence in achieving a proper disposition of the claim. Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the requirements of this section of the administrative code. The Insured’s assertions to the contrary are unsupported by the facts. 8. 69B-220.201(3)(o): Denied. Slide does not understand the basis for this alleged violation, as its adjusters are competent and knowledgeable as to the terms and conditions of the operative insurance policy. Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the requirements of this section of the administrative code. The Insured’s assertions to the contrary are unsupported by the facts. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE INSURANCE POLICY The CRN fails to allege specific violations of the insurance policy and provides no specific facts or circumstances of wrongdoing. The boilerplate CRN merely sets forth blanket allegations of wrongdoing, without further information. As such, the CRN is defective, as it failed to specifically identify the policy language that is the subject of the alleged violation, and further failed to include sufficient facts to put Slide on notice of the alleged violations. Notwithstanding, Slide denies any and all allegations of policy violations. All actions by Slide were done in compliance with the applicable Policy. As indicated above, Slide thoroughly investigated the reported loss including inspection of the insured property. Thus, it is clear that Slide has acted in compliance with the Policy. Slide asserts that it has at all times complied with the terms of the Policy and has complied with all applicable provisions of the Policy and Florida Statutes in the handling of this matter. STATEMENTS AS TO CURING THE DEFECTS OUTLINED IN THE NOTICE The CRN asserts that Slide must tender all insurance benefits due and owing. . Additionally, the CRN alleges that Slide must pay the Insured’s attorneys’ fees and costs when the Insured is not entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Fla. Stat. §627.428(4). Nevertheless, the method for curing violations alleged in a Civil Remedy Notice is not determined by the Insured. Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co., 753 So. 2d So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). Accordingly, Florida Statutes Section 624.155 does not impose on an insurer the obligation to pay whatever the insured demands. Section 624.155(2)(d) would have no effect or purpose under such an interpretation. Thus, Slide reasserts that it has acted in good faith towards its Insured at all times. Slide references to all the facts herein, which unequivocally demonstrate Slide’s expedient and timely administration of the Insured’s claim. Slide further asserts its full and strict compliance with the Policy and reiterates that it has acted properly in responding to the underlying claim in compliance with its contractual and legal obligations. Slide denies any wrongdoing in the handling of the underlying claim. Additionally, Slide denies violating any Florida Statute, Administrative Code, or code of ethics. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the documented facts of this claim establish that Slide acted diligently in its claims response and adequately performed its obligations under the policy of insurance and Florida law. Thus, the facts contradict all allegations that Slide has in any manner acted improperly or contrary to its contractual obligations to the Insured in this claim. Herein, Slide has attempted to fully and adequately respond to the allegations the Insured allege in the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation filed with the Department. Should there be any questions or further inquiry with respect to this matter, please contact the undersigned at (813) 761-1866 or at mnixon@slideinsurance.com. Sincerely, /s/ Michael Nixon Michael Nixon, Esq. Staff Counsel
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