Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     804168
Filing Accepted:  1/29/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
HILL   First Name   CHANORA
Street Address * 5392 NORTHWEST 65TH PLACE
City, State Zip * OCALA, FL 34482
Email Address * INTAKE2@THEKRFIRM.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   HILL   First Name   CHANORA
Policy # * 80-CW-S985-6 Claim #* 59-44B4-11N
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* KADIR First Name * ALI Initial A.
Street Address* 986 DOUGLAS AVE, STE. 102
City, State Zip* ALTAMONTE SPRINGS , FL 32714
Email Address * INTAKE2@THEKRFIRM.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):* ALL STATE FARM CLAIMS ADJUSTERS, EMPLOYEES, REPRESENTATIVES, AGENTS, VENDORS, AND/OR ENGINEERS WHO HANDLED THE CLAIM.
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
Claim Delay
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Unfair Trade Practice
Other : Misrepresentation
* 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.
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.

“COVERAGE A – DWELLING We will pay for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage A, unless the loss is excluded or limited in SECTION I – LOSSES NOT INSURED or otherwise excluded or limited in this policy. . . . COVERAGE B – PERSONAL PROPERTY We will pay for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage B caused by the following perils, unless the loss is excluded or limited in SECTION I – LOSSES NOT INSURED or otherwise excluded or limited in this policy. . . . 2. Windstorm or hail.” State Farm possesses a complete copy of the subject insurance policy. Ms. Hill is not in possession of a complete copy of the subject policy and is requesting a copy from State Farm. Thus, this CRN cannot cite subject policy language verbatim due to such. Notwithstanding, the subject policy is an all-risks insurance policy and the applicable policy language is the provision regarding coverage of all risks for the dwelling (Language such as “We insure against direct physical loss to property…”, “We insure against risk of direct loss to property…”, among other similar policy language etc. is typically used.) and provisions regarding exclusions or limitations to this all-risks provision.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Chanora Hill is a homeowner insured with a policy issued by State Farm Florida Insurance Company (“State Farm”). The insured property or home is located at 5392 Northwest 65th Place, Ocala, Florida 34482. In January of 2023, a hail and windstorm caused extensive damage to Ms. Hill’s home. Ms. Hill timely reported an insurance claim for this damage to State Farm and fully cooperated with all requests for inspections. She provided all requested documentation, if any, and complied with all post loss policy conditions. After reporting the claim, State Farm retained an unqualified and biased field adjuster who has a financial relationship with State Farm. This field adjuster inspected Ms. Hill’s home in an apparent effort to minimize State Farm’s losses instead of adjusting the claim in good faith in due regard for Ms. Hill’s interests. Based on these findings, State Farm completely denied coverage for Ms. Hill’s claim. Due to such bad faith claim handling, Ms. Hill has been unable to permanently repair her home. Based on these facts, it is clear State Farm unreasonably denied coverage for Ms. Hill’s claim in bad faith. It denied coverage for the claim without conducting a reasonable investigation based upon the available information. It misrepresented pertinent policy provisions and facts and did not act fairly and honestly with Ms. Hill in due regard for her interests. State Farm also delayed the claim and failed to timely respond to communications. It further failed to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of this claim. This has become a common business practice of State Farm. Florida Statute § 624.02 defines insurance as a contract whereby one undertakes to indemnify another or pay or allow a specified amount or a determinable benefit based on determinable contingencies. Inherent is the fact that payment must be made timely and promptly so that insureds may mitigate their damages and be put back into the position they were in prior to the loss as quickly as possible. State Farm has breached this duty by refusing to properly and timely adjust the loss. As a result, Ms. Hill will have no choice but to retain the undersigned counsel to file a lawsuit against State Farm. State Farm has more than enough information and is still refusing to accept coverage for this claim. This continued and repeated reckless claim delay and denial of coverage will result in a significant punitive damage award if a bad faith lawsuit is filed. State Farm can avoid a lawsuit for bad faith by immediately accepting full coverage under the subject insurance policy for this claim and by paying Ms. Hill based on her $57,407.83 estimate.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
hwalker@dsklawgroup.com 03-20-2025 Florida Department of Financial Services Bureau of Consumer Assistance/ Civil Remedy Section 200 E. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0322 VIA U.S. MAIL Chanora Hill 5392 Northwest 65th Place Ocala, Florida 34482 Intake2@thekrfirm.com VIA U.S. MAIL AND ELECTRONIC MAIL Ali. A. Kadir Esq. 986 Douglas Ave, Suite 102 Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714 intake2@thekrfirm.com RE: RESPONSE TO CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE OF INSURER VIOLATIONS Claim Number: 59-44B4-11N Date of Loss: January 7, 2023 Insured: Chanora Hill Complainant: Chanora Hill DFS File #: 804168 Dear Sir or Madam: This response is provided on behalf of State Farm Florida Insurance Company (“State Farm”), to respond to the above-referenced Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (“Civil Remedy Notice”). State Farm acknowledges receipt of the purported Civil Remedy Notice in the above-referenced matter but does not recognize the validity of the purported Civil Remedy Notice or its allegations. Rather, State Farm has acted at all times in good faith in its investigation and handling of this claim. State Farm’s claim decision was proper and justified based on the known facts and circumstances. As an initial matter, State Farm notes that the Civil Remedies Notice is defective, invalid and legally insufficient. Without waiver of any other arguments, claims, rights or defenses, the Civil Remedies Notice does not comply with Chapter 624, Florida Statutes, and applicable Florida law, in that it does not specify the facts and circumstances giving rise to the alleged violations, the statutory provisions cited were allegedly violated, or explain with specificity how the policy language cited is relevant to the alleged violations. The failure to strictly comply with the statute, the inclusion of amounts that are not properly payable, and fact that the Civil Remedies Notice is contrary to the purpose and requirements of Florida law, renders the Civil Remedies Notice invalid. Julien v. United Property & Casualty Insurance Company, 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021); Lane v. Westfield Ins. Co., 862 So. 2d 774, 779 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). In addition to the general defects with the Civil Remedies Notice noted above, State Farm also provides the following response, without limitation to raise other defenses at a later date. Please be advised that an invalid Civil Remedies Notice, such as the one to which this response is directed, cannot serve as a condition precedent to any action for alleged bad faith against State Farm under §624.155, Florida Statutes, or otherwise under Florida law. The Insured’s first allegation is that State Farm has violated §624.155(1)(b)(1), Florida Statutes. The Insured, in referencing this statute, states, “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 towards its insured and with due regard for her or his interests.” State Farm categorically denies all of the Insured's, and the Insured's attorney's, allegations in this matter. State Farm has acted in good faith, fairly, and honestly towards its Insured, with due regard for the Insured’s interest, at all times. State Farm inspected the claim and there was no storm related damage. Also, the weather data on the date of loss indicates there was no storm or high winds on the date of loss. The Insured’s second allegation is that State Farm has violated §624.155(1)(b)(3), Florida Statutes. The Insured, in referencing this statute, states, “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.” State Farm categorically denies all of the Insured’s and the Insured’s attorney’s, allegations in this matter. The Insured provided insufficient information for State Farm to respond except to state that State Farm always has properly and promptly settled claims when it has become reasonably clear that the claim is covered by the terms and provisions of the subject insurance policy. State Farm’s investigation concluded there was no observable damage on the roof, or in the attic, that was consistent with storm related damage. The Insured’s third allegation is that State Farm has violated §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Florida Statutes. The Insured provided insufficient information for State Farm to respond except to state that State Farm always has adopted and implemented proper standards for its investigation of this claim (and all claims). As such, State Farm categorically denies all of the Insured’s, and the Insured’s attorney's, allegations in this matter. The Insured’s fourth allegation is that State Farm has violated §626.954(1)(i)(3)(b), Florida Statutes. The Insured, in referencing this statute, states, that State Farm “misrepresented pertinent policy provisions and facts and did not act fairly and honestly with Ms. Hill in due regard for her interests.” State Farm categorically denies all of Insured’s, and the Insured’s attorney’s, allegation in this matter. State Farm has not made any material misrepresentations to the Insured, or anyone else in regard to the claim. The Insured's fifth and sixth allegations are that State Farm has violated §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) - (d), Florida Statutes. The Insured, in referencing this statute, states “Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims” and "Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigation based upon available information." The Insured provided insufficient information for State Farm to respond except to state that State Farm always has properly conducted a reasonable investigation of the claim based on the available information and has always acted in good faith in timely rendering its claims decision. State Farm has not misrepresented any facts regarding the policy provisions or coverages at issue. As such, State Farm categorically denies all of the Insured’s, and the Insureds’ attorney's, allegations in this matter. The Insured’s final allegations are that State Farm violated § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e) – (h), Florida Statutes. The Insured again provided insufficient information for State Farm to respond. State Farm made a proper coverage decision, promptly responded to the claim, promptly notified the Insured of any requested information, clearly explained the reason any information was requested, and has not improperly denied any claim, but rather, has properly investigated the claim with competent claims specialists and acted in good faith based on the unique facts and circumstances of the claim. State Farm denies that it engaged in the behavior alleged, denies that it mishandled the claim, and denies all allegations relating to any alleged patterns and practices. It is critical to note that the loss was alleged by the Insured to have occurred on or about January 7, 2023. Upon receiving notice of the claim and alleged loss, State Farm promptly inspected the property on January 28, 2023, and determined that the alleged damage to the roof was not the result of any storm event that occurred on January 7, 2023. State Farm observed that there was evidence of wear, tear, decay, exposure to sunlight, heat, and other normal weather conditions over time to the roof and exterior, which is not covered under the subject insurance policy. The investigation concluded there was no damage as a result of any accidental direct physical loss, and, as such, certain alleged damage was not covered under the subject insurance policy or was excluded from coverage. State Farm promptly communicated its claim decision to the Insured after the claim was reported to State Farm. State Farm denies that it engaged in any of the behavior alleged, denies that it mishandled the claim, and denies all allegations in the Civil Remedy Notice in regard to the claim or loss. State Farm does not, by this response, waive any claims, rights, defenses, or interests. State Farm hereby reserves and preserves any and all of its claims, rights, defenses, or interests relating to this matter that State Farm may have under the subject insurance policy or Florida law, whether known or unknown, and whether at law or in equity. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding these matters. Sincerely yours, /s/ Hannah M. Walker Hannah M. Walker
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