Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     804394
Filing Accepted:  1/30/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
MARIO DIAZ   First Name  
Street Address * 5248 N WOODCREST DRIVE
City, State Zip * WINTER PARK, FL 32792
Email Address * MARIOADIAZN@GMAIL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   MARIO DIAZ   First Name  
Policy # * SIC3075500 Claim #* 202406000643
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* MASCI First Name * MICHAEL Initial
Street Address* 925 FEDERAL HWY
City, State Zip* BOCA RATON , FL 33432
Email Address * MMASCI@KPATTORNEY.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):* COURTNEY FORD
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)(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)(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.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

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

The carrier was put on notice of the insured’s storm damage claim. The carrier initially improperly evaluated the claim and wrongfully denied the claim, determining that the loss was not covered under the policy. Subsequently, the insured prepared a loss package in the amount of $36,771.70 needed to restore the property back to its pre-loss condition. Whereas, the carrier has failed to prudently inspect the insureds’ property, come to a fair coverage determination and promptly pay the claim. The carrier improperly evaluated the claim and issued a low-ball undisputed payment. In turn, the insured has complied with all of the carrier’s requests to date and the carrier has still failed to treat this claim with good faith. This intentional delay with the claim has led to direct prejudice of the insured. About two hundred thirty-eight days have passed since the original date of loss. The carrier has still refused to pay the fully covered amount owed under the policy. The carrier is aware of damage sustained by the insured’s property and has not taken any meaningful ensuing action. It is clear that the carrier is not treating the insured with good faith claims conduct; failing to pay a claim clearly owed; not adjusting the claim and evaluating the loss properly, promptly and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to the insured; failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims by its adjusters and placing the company’s interests before the insured’s interests; refusing to pay the full amount owed to the insured despite the fact that the carrier has been on notice of the damages and looking for ways to delay full recovery or any recovery to the insured, when a reasonable carrier in a similar position would have tendered a full payment in accordance with both the policy language and statutory requirements. The carrier’s actions are in violation of Florida Statutes §§ 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a); 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), as well as Section I - Perils Insured Against, subsection 1, providing coverage for direct loss to property unless the damage was caused solely by an excluded or excepted cause of loss; and the loss payment provision under Section I - Conditions requiring payment of a claim within 90 days. All the aforementioned are part of what appears to be an ongoing pattern and practice of behavior of the carrier that it demonstrates a wanton and reckless disregard for the insured’s rights and a pattern and practice of bad faith claims practices to its insureds across the state of Florida. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, the carrier must: 1.) Pay the complete covered loss in the amount of $36,771.70, less any prior payments and less any applicable policy deductible; and 2.) Pay the statutory interest on the amount of unpaid damages from the date of loss to the date payment is finally made. A copy of this letter and filed form submitted to the FDFS has been sent to the carrier. Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned or Devin Pruitt at (239) 488-6829 if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Michael T. Masci, Esq. Attorney at Law
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
mthornton@slideinsurance.com 03-28-2025 Via E-mail & Posting on DFS Website Michael Masci, Esq. The Law Office of Kanner & Pintaluga 925 S Federal Hwy Boca Raton, FL 33432 mmasci@kpattorney.com Complainant: Mario Diaz Insured: Mario Diaz Claim No: 202406000643 Policy No: SIC3075500 CRN Filing No.: 804394 Dear Michael Masci: Please allow this correspondence to serve as Slide Insurance Company’s (“Slide”)’s response to the Civil Remedy Notice (“CRN”) filed on behalf of Mario Diaz (“Insured”). The CRN was accepted by the Department on January 30, 2025. Without waiving any objections to the sufficiency of the CRN, and specifically subject to a reservation of all rights and defenses herein, Slide denies all allegations that it violated Florida Statutes or other codes, regulations, and/or rules in this matter. Slide challenges the validity of the CRN as it fails to identify the specific policy terms the Insured claims Slide failed to follow and fails to allege any specific facts; in fact, the CRN does not have any details regarding the purported date of loss, the alleged damages, or conduct underlying the raised violations. See, e.g., Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So.3d 875, 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021); Demase v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company, 351 So.3d 136, 138-39 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022) (holding the trial court properly determined a civil remedy notice that failed to state with specificity the relevant policy language was legally insufficient). Thus, the CRN is deficient and should be returned by the Department. CLAIM FACTS Slide issued a homeowners’ insurance policy, Policy No. SIC3075500, to the Insured for property located at 5248 North Woodcrest Drive, Winter Park, Florida, in effect for the period of November 9, 2023 to November 9, 2024 (the “Policy”). On June 17, 2024, the Insured filed a claim for lifted and/or creased shingles on the roof of their property. The date of loss was reported as June 6, 2024. Slide acknowledged receipt of the claim and assigned a licensed field adjuster to inspect the loss. The Insured provided access for inspection of the property on June 24, 2024. At the inspection, the field adjuster did not find any evidence of wind damage to the roof. Rather, the field adjuster documented one torn shingle on the rear of the roof, which they attributed to the installation of the roof-mounted solar panels. No other damage was reported or observed and the Insured declined access to inspect the interior of the dwelling. On July 1, 2024, the Law Offices of Kanner & Pintaluga, PA (“Insured’s Attorney”), submitted a letter of representation on the Insured’s behalf. The desk adjuster assigned to the claim acknowledged the Insured’s Attorney’s representation and advised a certified copy of the Policy would be provided upon receipt. The Policy was later sent via email on July 22, 2024. Based on the investigation of the loss, including the field adjuster’s findings, the Insured was advised in a letter dated July 22, 2024, that due to the lack of wind or storm damage to the property, the loss was not covered under the Policy. The coverage explanation letter was sent to the Insured through their attorney, in accordance with the Policy and Florida law. No further communication from the Insured and/or their representatives was received until the Insured, through their Attorney, filed an initial Civil Remedy Notice on August 2, 2024. The Insured subsequently filed a Property Insurance Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation on August 15, 2024. In response to notice of the Insured’s dispute, Slide reopened the claim for further investigation and requested access to reinspect the property with a licensed engineer, Haag Global Engineering (“Engineer”). In a letter dated October 8, 2024, the Insured was advised that based on the Engineer’s on-site evaluation, coverage would be afforded for two (2) missing shingles. The October 8th letter further explained that no other wind-related damage was found to the property and the noted damage caused by installation of the solar panels was excluded from coverage under the Policy. Again, the Insured and/or their representatives did not present any notice of a dispute or information to substantiate their claims prior to filing this CRN on January 30, 2024. To date, neither the Insured nor their representatives have submitted any documentation to support their claim or otherwise notify Slide of the basis of their allegations. Slide maintains that it has acted in accordance with the terms of the subject insurance policy and the law in its adjustment of the claim. The facts and circumstances set forth in the CRN are misleading, vague, and incomplete. The Insured has presented no evidence to support the allegations of claim delay, claim denial, or unfair trade practice. Rather, the facts show Slide promptly investigated the loss, made communications as necessary to adjust the claim, and notified the Insured and their representatives of the coverage decision, in compliance with the Policy. DENIAL OF ALL VIOLATIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTE The CRN asserts Slide violated §§ 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), Fla. Stats. Notwithstanding any challenges to the CRN’s legal sufficiency, and specifically subject to a reservation of all defenses and/or rights, Slide categorically denies all violations of Florida Statutes or any other codes, regulations, and/or rules in its handling of the subject loss. The underlying claim was investigated and adjusted in as thorough and expedient a manner as possible. Following the evaluation of loss, including but not limited to an on-site inspection, the Insured was notified in writing of the coverage decision pursuant to the Policy’s terms, conditions, endorsements, limitations, and exclusions. Upon notice of the Insured’s dispute with the coverage decision via a previous Civil Remedy Notice and Property Insurance Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation, Slide reopened the claim for further investigation. Following the evaluation of the reopened claim, including an on-site assessment with a licensed engineer, Slide again notified the Insured in writing of the renewed coverage decision and basis for same. Thus, the documented facts of the claim show Slide has been forthcoming and truthful regarding the pertinent claim facts and Policy provisions relating to the loss. Further, Slide has promptly responded to all communications from the Insured and/or their representatives throughout the claim adjustment. The documented correspondences to the Insured and their representatives prove there is no basis to the Insured’s allegations that Slide failed to promptly act on any communications received, provide an explanation of the coverage decision in writing, or otherwise adequately and diligently adjust the claim. There is simply no support for the violations raised in this CRN and Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the documented facts contradict all allegations that Slide has in any manner acted improperly or contrary to its contractual obligations to the Insured. In filing this response, Slide does not intend to waive any rights or defenses that it may have in law or the policy. Rather, Slide expressly reserves all such rights and defenses without exception or limitation. Should there be any questions or further inquiry with respect to this matter, please contact the undersigned at mthornton@slideinsurance.com. Sincerely, /s/ Marianne Thornton Marianne Thornton, 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