Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     804694
Filing Accepted:  2/2/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
HATCHAT   First Name   ANDREW AND DIANE
Street Address * 5702 PLACE LAKE DR
City, State Zip * FORT PIERCE, FL 34951
Email Address * ANDREWHACHAT@GMAIL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   HATCHAT   First Name   ANDREW AND DIANE
Policy # * SIC3194944 Claim #* 202410014648
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* ALTMAN First Name * ALEXIS Initial
Street Address* 925 SOUTH FEDERAL HIGHWAY, 7TH FLOOR
City, State Zip* BOCA RATON , FL - FLORIDA 33432
Email Address * AALTMAN@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):* ASHLEY FIELDS
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)(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.

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.

Slide Insurance (“Carrier”) has not attempted in good faith to settle the insured’s claim 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 their interests. The carrier is required to properly investigate and adjust claims and cannot place that burden upon the insured. In fact, the carrier has intentionally under-valued the scope the insured’s claim in an effort to maximize its profits, thereby preventing the insured from being able to restore their home to its pre-loss conditions. The carrier has engaged in these actions, despite the clear and unequivocal burden discussed in Allstate Indemnity Co. v. Ruiz, 899 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 2005), wherein the Florida Supreme Court held, “The Legislature has clearly chosen to impose on the insurance companies a duty to use good faith and fair dealing in processing and litigating the claims of their insureds.” This claim arises from the devastation caused by a tornado that occurred during Hurricane Milton that ripped through Florida. The insured Andrew and Diane Hachat property fell victim to this storm and their home and life has been in shambles ever since. They called her insurance company to report the damages. A field adjuster went to the home and wrote up a very deficient estimate in the amount $13,951.16. The insured knew that this was nowhere near what was needed to bring the home back to its pre-loss condition. The insureds were devastated and hired the assistance of a public adjuster who provided Slide with an accurate and comprehensive estimate of damages in the amount of $137,508.01 Pursuant to Florida Statute §624.155(1)(b)(1), State Farm has failed to settle the claim in good faith when it could and should have done so. The Insured immediately reported the Loss and the Property was presented for inspection. The damage to the Insured’s property was clearly caused by a covered peril under the Policy and was clearly extensively damaged, but the carrier has not shown a good faith intention to pay what was owed under the policy. Instead the carrier has low balled the claim in hopes that the insured will sign a release and be unable to bring their home back to pre-loss condition. Florida law mandates that insurers and adjusters do not mislead the Insured. Florida Insurance companies that fail to follow these Florida laws and regulations, designed to protect consumers, do not only breach their duties under the policy of insurance but do so in bad faith. In violation of Florida Statute §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), the carrier intentionally misrepresented the available coverage under the policy by not providing full coverage and instead providing a low ball offer contingent on a release. Slide continues to mislead its insureds all for its own financial incentives. Pursuant to Florida Statute 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) the carrier has Failed to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims, as the estimate is extremely deficient and improperly scoped. 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 insureds’ 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 indemnity portion in the amount of $137,508.01 minus any applicable deductibles or prior payments; 2.) Pay all emergency services retained by the insureds; 3.) Pay all loss of use; 4.) Pay the statutory interest on the amount of unpaid damages from the date of loss to the date payment is finally made. Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned (561)-892-9988 if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Alexis Altman
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
mnixon@slideinsurance.com 02-14-2025 Via E-mail & Posting on DFS Website Alexis Altman, Esq. Law Offices of Kanner & Pintaluga 925 S. Federal Hwy Boca Raton, FL 33432 aaltman@kpattorney.com Complainant: Andrew Hatchat a/k/a Andrew Hachat and Diane Hatchat a/k/a Diane Hachat a/k/a Daiane Hachat Insured: Andrew Hatchat a/k/a Andrew Hachat and Diane Hatchat a/k/a Diane Hachat a/k/a Daiane Hachat Claim No: 202410014648 Policy No: SIC3194944 Date of loss: 10/09/24 CRN Filing No.: 804694 Dear Ms. Altman: 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 Andrew Hatchat a/k/a Andrew Hachat and Diane Hatchat a/k/a Diane Hachat a/k/a Daiane Hachat (“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. Slide further notes the CRN is invalid and improper as the correct spelling of the Insured’s names are Andrew Hachat and Daiane Hachat, not Andrew and Diane Hatchat. 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 failing to state with specificity the relevant policy language at issue. 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 civil remedy notice 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 21, 2024, as a claim relating to tornado damage to the tile roof with a DOL of October 9, 2024. Slide promptly adjusted the loss, including, but not limited to, sending Independent Adjusters Justin Heinreich and Matt Carmen to inspect the insured property. Based on Slide’s investigation and adjustment of the underlying claim, Slide issued its determination letter and payment(s) of approximately $64,462.98. 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. REASONS 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 these allegations. Notwithstanding, Slide denies each and every allegation 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 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 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 the Insured was issued payment(s). 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 the Insured was issued payment(s). 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 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 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)(d): Denied. Slide has not denied the underlying claim without reasonable investigation of the reported loss. As referenced in the factual narrative above, Slide investigated the reported claim and adjusted the loss in as thorough and expedient a manner as possible.? Following the investigation and evaluation of the underlying claim payment(s) were tendered to the Insured. Accordingly, 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. 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 states that Slide must pay for emergency services and loss of use when the Insured has not submitted claims for emergency services and loss of use. 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