Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     804859
Filing Accepted:  2/3/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
JOHN   First Name   HIGBE
Street Address * 5633 ORTEGA FARMS ROAD
City, State Zip * JACKSONVILLE, FL 32244-23
Email Address * JGHIGBE@GMAIL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   HIGBE   First Name   JOHN
Policy # * P000470214 Claim #* 258188
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* BISHOP First Name * CONRAD Initial
Street Address* 411 NORTH WASHINGTON STREET
City, State Zip* PERRY , FLORIDA 32348
Email Address * SONNYBISHOP@ICLOUD.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10117
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* JOSE DIAZ
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
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)(2) Making claims payments to insureds or beneficiaries not accompanied by a statement setting forth the coverage under which payments are being made.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

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

The insured has a home located at 20985 Keaton Beach Road, Keaton Beach, Florida 32348 which was damaged by Hurricane Hellene. The insured received a price list from The Dantzler Group, a preferred vendor for the carrier for $42,664.63. The carrier offered the insured $399.38. The list of items that need to be repaired and/or replaced is missing at least eight items.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
TCOPELAND@SECURITYFIRSTFLORIDA.COM 04-01-2025 Via Electronic Filing: Florida Department of Financial Services Bureau of Consumer Assistance c/o: Civil Remedy Section Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0322 Via Email: Conrad Bishop The Bishop Law Firm, P.A. 411 N Washington St Perry, FL 32348-0167 SONNYBISHOP@ICLOUD.COM Re: CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE OF INSURER VIOLATION Filing No.: 804859 Insured: JOHN HIGBE Insurer: Security First Insurance Company Claim No.: 258188 Policy No.: P000470300 Date of Loss: 9/27/24 Dear Sir or Madam: This correspondence is in response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (hereinafter referred to as the “CRN”) was filed by John Higbe (hereinafter referred to as “Insured”). Please be advised that the undersigned attorney has been retained to represent the interests of Security First Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as “Security First”) with respect to the above-referenced matter. The Florida Department of Financial Services (hereinafter referred to as “Department”) assigned this CRN an acceptance date of 2/3/2025 and DFS File No.: 804859. This matter concerns a property damage claim made by the Insured pursuant to a homeowners’ insurance policy provided by Security First Policy No. P000470214 and assigned Claim No. 258188. As the basis for filing the CRN against Security First, Insured asserts in the “Reasons for Notice” section violations such as Claim Denial, Claim Delay, Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer, Unfair Trade Practice, and Violations of various statutes and Fla. Admin Code along with the following statutory violations: 624.155(1)(b)(1) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all 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. 624.155(1)(b)(2) Making claims payments to insureds or beneficiaries not accompanied by a statement setting forth the coverage under which payments are being made. Security First welcomes this opportunity to respond to the CRN and denies each allegation contained therein. Security First does not consider there to have been any manner of violation and questions the validity of the CRN as it fails to meet the requirements set forth in Section 624.155, Florida Statutes and Florida law and thus fails to perfect Insured’s rights to pursue civil remedies under Florida Statutes. This CRN does not sufficiently support the allegations stated above. As is standard procedure, upon the first notice of the claim, the subject property was dutifully inspected by roofing contractor, which was documented through photographs. Security First received notice on September 28, 2024, for the alleged loss that occurred on September 27, 2024. The subject property was timely inspected by a licensed contractor and an engineer. SFIC was also informed by the engineer that prior to repairs being made the engineer needs to prepare a structural engineer repair drawings for the permit. SFIC is currently waiting from the engineer on the cost and timing of when the repair drawings will be completed. The engineer did inform SFIC that they will also need a return visit to obtain measurements. SFIC has made the insured aware of every step taken either by mail, text or phone calls. The last email SFIC made to the insured was on April 1, 2025. Security First timely processed and reviewed the claim. Security First acted well within industry standards. The insured had been informed of our investigation findings, the coverage under the policy and he has been kept informed of the steps the experts have indicated that must be taken in the property. Furthermore, the allegations made in the CRN do not meet the specificity requirement of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. I. Specificity Requirement The Insured’s CRN violates multiple requirements set forth in the Florida courts’ jurisprudence for Civil Remedy Notices. In addition, it fails to meet even the most basic requirements of the Statute. (3)(a) As a condition precedent to bringing an action under this section, the department and the authorized insurer must have been given 60 days’ written notice of the violations. Notice to the authorized insurer must be provided by the department to the e-mail address designated by the insurer under s. 624.422. (b) The notice shall be on a form provided by the department and shall state with specificity the following information, and such other information as the department may require (emphasis added): 1. The statutory provision, including the specific language of the statute, which the authorized insurer allegedly violated. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation. 3. The name of any individual involved in the violation. 4. Reference to specific policy language that is relevant to the violation, if any. If the person bringing the civil action is a third-party claimant, she or he shall not be required to reference the specific policy language if the authorized insurer has not provided a copy of the policy to the third-party claimant pursuant to written request. 5. A statement that the notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section. In interpreting this statute, courts have emphasized the importance of filing specific civil remedy notices. The civil remedy notice is “crucial to the procedural integrity of an action” under the Statute. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Clohessy, 32 F.Supp.2d 1328, 1333 (M.D. Fla. 1998). “It is, without a doubt, a condition that must be satisfied in order for one to perfect the right to sue under the statute.” Id. “In creating this statutory remedy for bad- faith actions, the Legislature provided this sixty-day window as a last opportunity for insurers to comply with their claim-handling obligations when a good-faith decision by the insurer would indicate that contractual benefits are owed.” Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 2000). Thus, the Notice cannot be “vague and ‘shotgun’ in nature,” rather than “the type of specific notice required by the statute that would allow [the insurer] an opportunity to cure.” Heritage Corp. of South Florida v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 580 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1299 (S.D. Fla. 2008). Because it is in derogation of the common law, Section 624.155(1)(b), Florida Statutes must be strictly construed. Talat, 753 So. 2d at 1283 (citing Baxter v. Royal Indem. Co., 285 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). To perfect the right to sue under the statute, the insured must specifically notify the insured of any and all alleged violations claimed. Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 952 F.Supp. 773, 776 (M.D. Fla. 1996) (“Talat I”) See Fox v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., No. 8:16-CV-3254-T-23MAP, 2017 WL 1541294, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2017) (sufficiency means specificity). In Junior Julien v. United Property and Casualty Insurance Company, No. 4D19-2761, 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021), the Honorable Court stated: The Middle District of Florida was confronted with a civil remedy notice that was similarly broad in scope and concluded that listing nearly all policy provisions on the notice did not satisfy the statute. Fox v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., No. 8:16-CV-3254-T-23MAP, 2017 WL 1541294, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2017). The court explained that “[i]f the statute contained no specificity requirement, [then] the [insureds’] casual ‘reference’ to the entire insurance policy undoubtedly would suffice.” Id. But, the court continued, “the Legislature included ‘specific’ or a variant not once but twice in the statute.” Id. As a result, the insureds’ listing of whole sections of the insurance policy “appear[ed] to lack specificity.” Id. In Valenti, the District Court for the Middle District of Florida considered the practical consequences of an insured’s non-specific civil remedy notice. Valenti v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America, 2006 WL 1627276 (M.D. Fla. 2006). The plaintiff’s civil remedy notice included allegations that the defendant conducted an inadequate investigation. The plaintiff, however, failed to identify with the requisite specificity the defendant’s actions that were inadequate. The Middle District held that the plaintiff’s civil remedy notice was insufficient, and stated the following: [T]he civil remedy notice must be specific enough to provide insurers notice of the wrongdoing so the insurer can cure the same within sixty days. … Plaintiffs’ counsel, during the hearing in this matter, argued a civil remedy notice that states “you denied my claim” should be sufficient to place the insurer on notice of what was needed to be cured. Plaintiffs’ counsel further argued that it was up to the insurer, as the insurance expert, to decipher what actions needed to be cured. This argument, in this Court's estimation, is illogical and is counter to the purpose of the civil remedy notice. If a simple “you denied my claim” was sufficient to put insurers on notice, the sixty-day cure period would be little more than a guessing game with the insurer attempting to correctly guess what errors the insured claimed it made in the claims handling process, or risk defending a bad faith action. This surely is not what the legislature had in mind when it created the civil remedy notice. Accordingly, this Court finds that Plaintiffs allegation that Defendant failed to conduct an adequate investigation is insufficient to provide Defendant an opportunity to cure. Id. at *2. The guidance for an insured could not be more clear. “The purpose of the civil remedy notice is to give the insurer one last chance to settle a claim with its insured and avoid unnecessary bad faith litigation.” Lane v. Westfield Insurance Co., 862 So. 2d 774, 779 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Its purpose is not “to give the insured a right of action to proceed against the insurer even after the insured’s claim has been paid or resolved.” Id. Ultimately, conclusory allegations without facts fail to perfect a statutory bad faith claim. Merely alleging the bare minimum allegations is insufficient pursuant to Florida courts’ interpretations of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. A simple review of the facts of this claim reveals that there was not any delay in processing the claim. While the Insured may not like the experts’ findings, the facts of this claim reveals no unfair trade practices on the part of Security First. II. Facts Security First received notice on September 28, 2024, for the alleged loss that occurred on September 27, 2024. The subject property was timely inspected by a licensed contractor and an engineer. SFIC was also informed by the engineer that prior to repairs being made the engineer needs to prepare a structural engineer repair drawings for the permit. SFIC is currently waiting from the engineer on the cost and timing of when the repair drawings will be completed. The engineer did inform SFIC that they will also need a return visit to obtain measurements. SFIC has made the insured aware of every step taken either by mail, text or phone calls. The last email SFIC made to the insured was on March 12, 2025. Security First timely processed and reviewed the claim. Security First acted well within industry standards. The insured had been informed of our investigation findings, the coverage under the policy and he has been kept informed of the steps the experts have indicated that must be taken in the property. III. Inaccuracy of Statutory Allegations in Civil Remedy Notice With the above referenced facts established, it is clear the alleged statutory violations also are unsupported. Without any supporting facts other than conclusory statements provided by Insured, Security First cannot adequately address same. In our factual analysis provided in this Response, we provided facts that implicitly address many of the allegations in the CRN. From those facts, it becomes clear that Security First has handled the claim pursuant to the professional standards of care. Insured’s CRN alleges the following statutory violations by Security First, and because of the bare nature of the allegations and lack of facts provided as well as the blatant disregard for accuracy thereof, Security First addresses each as follows: • Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all 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. This allegation is without basis and therefore denied, as Security First conducted a prompt and thorough investigation in good faith. Security First received notice on September 28, 2024, for the alleged loss that occurred on September 27, 2024. The subject property was timely inspected by a licensed contractor and an engineer. SFIC was also informed by the engineer that prior to repairs being made the engineer needs to prepare a structural engineer repair drawings for the permit. SFIC is currently waiting from the engineer on the cost and timing of when the repair drawings will be completed. The engineer did inform SFIC that they will also need a return visit to obtain measurements. SFIC has made the insured aware of every step taken either by mail, text or phone calls. The last email SFIC made to the insured was on April 1, 2025. Lastly, the Insured has alleged no facts or circumstances supporting the basis for this reason in the CRN. • Making claims payments to insureds or beneficiaries not accompanied by a statement setting forth the coverage under which payments are being made. This allegation is without basis and therefore denied. Lastly, the Insured has alleged no facts or circumstances supporting the basis for this reason in the CRN. IV. Conclusion At all times, Security First has acted in good faith in its handling of the claim and it has acted fairly, honestly, and with due regard for the Insured’s interest and in determining obligations to Insured. Specifically, Security First has complied with its obligations under the applicable Florida Statutes and the applicable Security First Insurance policy. Security First specifically denies any claim for bad faith. Security First continues to reserve all its rights under the policy, at law and in equity. Regardless, Insured’s conclusory allegations fail to place Security First on notice of any purported violations. Furthermore, the Civil Remedy Notice fails to identify how to cure the allegations set forth. The allegations are without basis. It is clear Security First properly handled and adequately investigated the claim. We hope that this response has answered any concerns regarding this matter. If the Department has any question concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned 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