Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     804453
Filing Accepted:  1/30/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
BAYSIDE PLAZA OF REDINGTON SHORES, INC. D/B/A JEANETTE DEMARCO   First Name  
Street Address * 17801 GULF BLVD.
City, State Zip * REDINGTON SHORES, FL 33708
Email Address * CLAY@THEKRFIRM.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   BAYSIDE PLAZA OF REDINGTON SHORES, INC. D/B/A JEANETTE DEMARCO   First Name  
Policy # * 5044689154 Claim #* 05000002617
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* KUHN First Name * CLAYTON Initial
Street Address* 2110 WEST PLATT STREET
City, State Zip* TAMPA , FLORIDA 33606
Email Address * CLAY@THEKRFIRM.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   FRONTLINE INSURANCE UNLIMITED COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10074
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* ANY AND ALL PERSONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CLAIMS HANDLING FROM FRONTLINE INSURANCE UNLIMITED COMPANY
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
Unfair Trade Practice
* 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.
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)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

THE POLICY LANGUAGE RELEVANT TO THE VIOLATIONS INCLUDES ALL APPLICABLE LOSS PAYMENT AND COVERAGE PROVISIONS OF POLICY NUMBER 5044689154, INCLUDING THE DECLARATIONS PAGE AND ALL ENDORSEMENTS TO THE POLICY, WITH RESPECT TO COVERAGES A, B, C, AND D. ADDITIONALLY, ANY SECTIONS RELIED UPON BY THE INSURER IN ITS DENIAL TO FULLY PAY THE CLAIM, INCLUDING THE DUTIES IN THE EVENT OF LOSS PROVISIONS AND THE POLICY'S EXCLUSION OF COVERAGE PROVISIONS.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Bayside Plaza of Redington Shores, Inc. d/b/a Jeanette Demarco (hereinafter “Insured”) is insured with an all-risks policy issued by Frontline Insurance Unlimited Company (hereinafter “Carrier”). On or about October 9, 2024, Insured’s property located at 17801 Gulf Blvd., Redington Shores, Florida 33708 sustained significant damage as a result of a windstorm event. Specifically, Hurricane Helene created multiple openings to the roof of Insured’s property. This resulted in interior water damage to various areas of the interior of Insured’s property including but not limited to, the entries, halls, rooms, and bathrooms. The Loss is covered under Insured’s policy issued by Carrier. Insured promptly reported the claim and fully cooperated with all requests for inspections. Carrier assigned Claim No. 05000002617 to the loss. The Insured has fully cooperated with Carrier’s investigation of the claim, including providing all requested documentation and complying with all post-loss policy conditions. Specifically, the Insured, with assistance from their public adjuster, submitted an estimate for $239,158.11, which was a fair and reasonable assessment for the repair/replacement of damages. After reporting the claim, Carrier retained an unqualified and biased engineer, Joseph A. Dixon P.E. with Sdii Global, LLC, to adjust the loss. This engineer had a financial incentive to adjust the loss in a manner that would minimize Carrier’s losses. This engineer performed a mere cursory inspection of the property on October 22, 2024. Instead of adjusting the claim fairly, honestly, in good faith, and with due regard for the Insured’s interests, this engineer made a conscious effort to ignore evidence of covered losses to the property. Despite Insured providing Carrier with a detailed estimate, Carrier failed to pay Insured the amount necessary to repair/replace the damaged property, less the applicable deductible. Instead, Carrier wrongfully denied full coverage for the loss. This has become a common business practice for Carrier. Under the circumstances surrounding this claim, had Carrier acted fairly and honestly toward the Insured and with due regard for the Insured’s interests, Carrier could and should have attempted in good faith to settle this claim. Carrier did not and, instead, dishonestly, and unfairly placed its own interests well ahead of those of the Insured. In doing so, Carrier violated Section 624.155(1)(b)(1), Florida Statutes. Carrier’s use of unqualified and biased adjusters and engineers to identify the repairs necessary to restore the property to its pre-loss condition, evidence Carrier’s failure to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims in violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), Florida Statutes. Carrier’s use of unqualified and biased adjusters and engineers to identify the repairs necessary to restore the property to its pre-loss condition, evidence Carrier’s failure to conduct a reasonable investigation based upon available information. In denying full coverage for this claim without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information, Carrier has violated Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), Florida Statutes. By representing to Insured that the Policy does not afford full coverage for this loss, Carrier is misrepresenting pertinent facts and/or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue, in violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), Florida Statutes. When applying the facts present here to Florida law, it is clear that Carrier is acting in bad faith. 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. Carrier has breached this duty by refusing to properly and timely adjust the loss. Moreover, Section 69B-220.201 of the Florida Administrative Code defines Carrier’s adjusters conduct here as an unfair claims settlement practice. Specifically, Section 69B-220.201(3) provides that “[a]n adjuster shall not approach investigations, adjustments, and settlements in a manner prejudicial to the insured” and that “[a]n adjuster shall make truthful and unbiased reports of the facts after making a complete investigation.” As detailed above, Carrier’s investigation and adjustment of this claim was done in a manner prejudicial to Insured, was incomplete, and lacked truthful and unbiased reports of the facts. Carrier has more than enough information and is still refusing to accept coverage for the Insured’s 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. Carrier can cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice and avoid a lawsuit for bad faith by immediately accepting full coverage under the subject insurance policy for this claim and by paying Insured’s estimate of damages $239,158.11, less applicable deductible, which is the reasonable amount of the covered loss pursuant to the policy. A copy of this form has been submitted to the Florida Department of Financial Services who has transmitted the same to the following parties providing them notice of the filing of this Civil Remedy Notice: Frontline Insurance Unlimited Company.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
mkranzler@chartwelllaw.com 03-12-2025 March 12, 2025 Bayside Plaza of Redington Shores, Inc. D/B/A Jeannette Demarco VIA E-MAIL TO: clay@thekrfirm.com and Florida Department Of Financial Services Consumer Assistance/Civil Remedy Section Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0322 VIA E-FILING: Dept. of Financial Services Civil Remedy Notice Website RE: BAYSIDE PLAZA OF REDINGTON SHORES, INC. D/B/A JEANETTE DEMARCO Date of Filing: January 30, 2025 Claim No.: 05000002617 CRN Filing No.: 804453 Policy No.: 5044689154 Address: 17801 Gulf Blvd, Jeanette Demarco, Redington Shores, FL 33708 To Whom It May Concern: This office has been retained by Frontline Insurance Unlimited Company (“Frontline”) in connection with the above referenced claim. Please accept the following as Frontline’s Response to the Civil Remedy Notice (“CRN” or “Notice”) filed on January 30, 2025 on behalf of Bayside Plaza of Redington Shores, Inc. D/B/A Jeanette Demarco. Frontline denies each and every allegation brought forth in the CRN and denies any wrongdoing in the handling of this matter. Below we include a detailed factual history of the claim handling and actions by Frontline, which clearly reveals Frontline acted properly in responding to the claim and is in compliance with both its contractual and legal obligations. Frontline further states the Insured’s CRN is defective as it fails to comply with the strict governing requirements contained within Florida Statute Section 624.155. Namely, the statute requires that a CRN shall “state with specificity . . . [t]he facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.” Fla. Stat. § 624.155(3)(b)2. Under Florida law, a civil remedy notice must state the facts and circumstances that give rise to an alleged violation with such specificity sufficient to allow an insurer to cure any alleged violation within the sixty (60) day statutory period. See Lane v. Westfield Insurance Company, 862 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). For this reason, the CRN is deficient on its face and should be rejected. The Insured’s CRN is deficient as the limited facts and circumstances set forth therein are false, incomplete, and misleading, as well as insufficient to establish a violation of any statute or policy provision. Additionally, the CRN includes a list of four (4) statutory provisions alleged to have been violated. The referenced statutes, however, do not appear to be pertinent to the subject claim, and the CRN fails to specify each statute’s relative applicability to same. Further, the CRN does not contain specific facts addressing and supporting each alleged statutory violation against Frontline, but rather sets forth only stock, conclusory allegations of purported bad faith, and further makes certain statements of “fact” which are intentionally misleading at best. For these reasons alone, the CRN is defective on its face. In light of the incorrect, deficient, incomplete, misleading, and false allegations set forth in the CRN, Frontline hereby provides the Department of Financial Services with the following facts of the claim that, in and of themselves, disprove all of the allegations brought forth in the CRN. Frontline hereby asserts that all actions taken in the handling of this claim were done so in good faith for the purpose of fair and timely disposition of this matter. CLAIM FACTS The insured property is a multi-use commercial building with retail space located at 17801 Gulf Blvd, Redington Shores, FL 33708. Frontline issued a property insurance policy bearing policy number 5044689154 to the Insured, Bayside Plaza of Redington Shores, Inc. D/B/A Jeanette Demarco, with effective dates of July 18, 2024 through July 18, 2025 This claim was first reported to Frontline on October 14, 2024, as damages having occurred on or around October 9, 2024 as a result of Hurricane Milton. On the same date, Frontline promptly acknowledged the claim with correspondence to the Insured. Frontline immediately began its investigation. Prior to reporting this claim, the Insured obtained its own inspection from Palm Partners, which occurred on October 13, 2025. An Independent Adjuster inspected the subject property on Frontline’s behalf on October 20, 2024, and documented the observed conditions for Frontline’s review. Notably, the conditions observed at that time were noted to be identical those damages previously claimed as a result of Hurricane Helene, occurring the month prior to Hurricane Milton. There were extensive flood damages from Hurricane Helene noted, but no new damage noted which could be reasonably attributed to the subsequent Hurricane Milton claim. Said post-Hurricane Helene inspection was performed on October 2, 2024, before the subsequent impact of Hurricane Milton. Frontline subsequently obtained a reinspection of the subject property by a licensed Professional Engineer, which took place on October 22, 2024. The engineer, based upon his education, training, professional experience, and personal observations, came to the following conclusions: • The rear right French door of Wahoo’s was damaged as a result of flood-borne debris. • There were no impact marks, scoured foundation soils, or other evidence of significant displacement or damage to the other visible structural components of the property. • The roof did not exhibit any storm-related damage. This equates to zero percent (0%) of the area of the roof. This quantity is less than the 25 percent threshold specified in the Code; therefore, the roof section is not required to be replaced to conform to the Code due to storm-related damage. • The roof covering exhibited compromised cap sheet around the exhaust fans as a result of deferred maintenance to the grease collection mechanisms around the exhaust fans. • The roof covering and surrounding appurtenances did not exhibit any hail-related damage. • There were no moisture stains or elevated moisture conditions observed on the ceilings of the property. • The hole in the drop ceiling of the Thai Rama 9 restaurant was the result of mechanical damage, not moisture intrusion. • The cracks found on the ceilings of Wahoo’s were typical of post construction structural movement that is within an expected range for the type and age of construction. Furthermore, there were signs of previous repairs to these cracks, indicating a pre-existing condition. Accordingly, where there was no new damage to the subject property as a result of Hurricane Milton, this claim, directed to a claim of damage due to Hurricane Milton specifically, was denied in full in a correspondence dated November 8, 2024. As demonstrated by the narrative above, Frontline engaged, and continues to engage, in a timely, thorough, and good faith evaluation of this claim. As shown, Frontline has at all times fully complied with all obligations imposed by the subject Policy and Florida law. As such, Frontline acted diligently in the handling of the underlying claim. Frontline thoroughly investigated the claim and informed the Insured of its investigation consistently and of its coverage determinations. Frontline asserts that it acted diligently and in good faith in the evaluation and handling of the underlying claim and complied at all times with the provisions of the Policy and applicable Florida Statutes. ALLEGED REASON FOR NOTICE: Claim Denial: Frontline denies any improper claim denial as evidenced from the facts outlined above. The Insured has, whether intentionally or not, conflated two separate claims, and two separate loss events, but the claim and loss at issue here did not result in any damages for which coverage could reasonably be afforded. Frontline acted in accordance with its duties and obligations pursuant to the policy of insurance. Unfair Trade Practice: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. The Insured submit no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. At no time did Frontline, its agents, or its employees employ any unfair business practice during the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. ALLEGED STATUTORY VIOLATIONS The Insured alleges four (4) statutory violations in the CRN, however, no specific facts or circumstances are provided to support these allegations. The CRN is simply a recitation of general, stock allegations of bad faith conduct, along with a list of statutory violations that are not specifically alleged or described. Notwithstanding, Frontline denies each and every allegation of statutory violation individually as follows: 624.155(1)(b)(1): Denied. Frontline has not failed to attempt to settle this claim in good faith and has always acted fairly and honestly towards the Insured. As shown in the above factual summary, the conduct of Frontline following its receipt of the first notice of the loss has complied with all aspects of Florida law. Frontline timely inspected the loss and informed the Insured of its coverage determination. The Insured has submitted no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation, but is simply conflating two different claims pertaining to two different storm events. Frontline asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligation set forth in the subject insurance policy. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Denied. This allegation is without basis. The Insured submit no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. Frontline has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of claims at all times. The aforementioned facts demonstrate that Frontline employed proper and customary claims practices in the investigation and adjustment of this claim, and in strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b): Denied. As shown in the detailed factual summary above, Frontline was prompt and forthcoming with the Insured at all times material hereto, properly advising the Insured of the facts, observations, and Policy language at issue. Frontline asserts its full and strict compliance with the contractual and statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligation set forth in the subject insurance Policy. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d): Denied. As shown in the detailed factual summary above, Frontline was prompt and forthcoming with the Insured at all times material hereto, properly advising the Insured of the facts, observations, and Policy language at issue. Furthermore, this claim was not denied. Frontline inspected the subject property after both of the Insured’s claimed storm losses, plus an additional inspection by a licensed Professional Engineer. Frontline asserts its full and strict compliance with the contractual and statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligation set forth in the subject insurance Policy. The narrative of the Insured’s CRN also references a number of other statutes and Administrative Code provisions. Frontline denies any and all allegations of violations thereto as well. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE INSURANCE POLICY The Insured’s CRN references multiple broad Policy provisions which they allege to have been violated, without any explanation as to their applicability to this dispute. This failure to provide specific reference to policy language and its applicability to the dispute is a direct and clear noncompliance with the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 624.155, rendering the CRN deficient on its face as to form and substance. Notwithstanding, Frontline denies violating any provision or duties set forth in the Policy and further asserts compliance with the Policy and all of its provisions and endorsements. FPIC handled the Insured’s claim with diligence and at all times acted fairly in the administration of this claim and treated the Insured with honesty and with due regard for their interests. All actions by Frontline were done in complete and strict compliance with the Policy. FRONTLINE DENIES ALL ALLEGATIONS IN THE CRN Frontline hereby denies any and all allegations of bad faith by the Insured, and states that it has, at all times material, handled and adjusted the Insured’s claim with utmost good faith. Any and all allegations of bad faith contained within the CRN are expressly rejected by Frontline. As stated above, the CRN is deficient as the CRN itself contains a recitation of general, stock allegations of bad faith conduct, along with four (4) statutory provisions that are not specifically alleged or described. The CRN is therefore non-compliant with Florida Statute Section 624.155(3), which requires that a civil remedy notice of insurer violation “state with specificity”, inter alia, the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation and the “specific” language of the subject insurance policy that is relevant to any alleged violation(s). The Insured wholly fail to provide any specific facts or circumstances giving rise to the alleged violations in the CRN, and instead simply allege a litany of non-specific, boilerplate allegations against Frontline as purported acts of bad faith. Accordingly, the CRN does not provide the contemplated and mandated notice of alleged bad faith that is required as a condition precedent to any civil claim for bad faith pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 624.155. For these reasons, the CRN is denied and rejected. Additionally, as described in detail above, the facts alleged in the CRN are contrary to the actual facts underlying the subject claim. Frontline further denies any and all other allegations not specifically addressed in this response related to the above-referenced Civil Remedy Notice. There has been no violation of the referenced statutory provisions by Frontline. By responding to the Civil Remedy Notice filed by the Insured, Frontline neither waives nor abandons but expressly reserves any and all rights, claims and defenses it has or may have under the terms and conditions of the Policy and applicable Florida law. Herein, Frontline has attempted to fully and adequately respond to the allegations alleged in the CRN. Should the Florida Department of Financial Services have any questions or further inquiry with respect to this matter, please contact the undersigned. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, CHARTWELL LAW, LLP. ______________________________ Michael J. Kranzler, Esq. cc: Florida Department of Financial Services
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