Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     804922
Filing Accepted:  2/4/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
MURPHY AND GLENN MURPHY   First Name   CHRISTOPHER AND YAULANDA
Street Address * 3015 AMALFI DR.
City, State Zip * ORLANDO, FL 32820
Email Address * TRACKSTAR101M@YAHOO.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   MURPHY AND GLENN MURPHY   First Name   CHRISTOPHER AND YAULANDA
Policy # * 9599389727 Claim #* 01000116558
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   FIRST PROTECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10897
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* KARRIE SCHMOKER, DERRICK COLLINS AND ALL OTHER FRONTLINE EMPLOYEES, REPRESENTATIVES, AGENTS, AND VENDORS WHO HANDLED THIS CLAIM
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
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)(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.

SECTION I – PERILS INSURED AGAINST Paragraph A.1. in Form HO 00 03 is deleted and replaced by the following: 1. We insure for sudden and accidental direct physical loss to covered property described in Coverages A and B unless the loss is otherwise excluded in this policy.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Christopher Murphy and Yaulanda Glenn-Murphy (“the insureds”) are homeowners insured under a policy issued by Frontline Insurance (“Frontline”). The insured property is located at 3015 Amalfi Dr., Orlando, FL 32820. On February 4, 2024, a severe weather event caused significant damage to the insureds’ property, including hail impacts to the roof, gutters, and window screens. Weather data supports the occurrence and extent of the storm-related damage. The insureds promptly reported the loss and complied with all post-loss obligations under the policy. Despite this, Frontline failed to comply with its statutory obligations under Florida law. Florida Statute § 627.70131(7)(a) mandates that insurers pay or deny claims within 60 days after notice of loss unless factors beyond their control prevent timely action. Frontline failed to make a coverage determination within this legally required timeframe, instead taking a total of 145 days—more than double the statutory limit—without justification. This excessive delay violates Florida law and has left the insureds in an ongoing state of hardship, unable to repair their home. The insureds submitted a comprehensive estimate for $83,538.03, accurately reflecting the necessary cost of repairs. Despite overwhelming evidence, including clear documentation of hail-related damage, Frontline has failed to properly and promptly indemnify the insureds. Florida Statute § 624.02 defines insurance as a contract to indemnify policyholders for damages based on determinable contingencies, requiring insurers to act in good faith, timely adjust claims, and make payments promptly. By failing to acknowledge communications in a timely manner, delaying its coverage determination well beyond the legal timeframe, and refusing to fully and fairly compensate the insureds for their loss, Frontline has breached its contractual and statutory obligations. To cure this civil remedy notice and avoid further legal action, Frontline must immediately acknowledge full coverage under the insureds’ policy, issue payment based on the amount of the insureds’ estimate of $83,538.03 and ensure compliance with Florida Statutes in the adjustment and handling of all claims moving forward. Failure to act accordingly will result in additional damages, including interest, attorney fees, and potential punitive awards, and may necessitate legal action for bad faith.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
jsuarez@chartwelllaw.com 04-02-2025 SHAWN E. DEVENDORF, ESQUIRE Direct Dial: (786) 349-3612 sdevendorf@chartwelllaw.com Reply To: Miami Office 100 SE 2nd Street, Suite 2150 Miami, FL 33131-5322 Phone: (305) 372-9044 Facsimile: (305) 372-5044 April 2, 2025 Christopher Murphy, Yaulanda Murphy, & Glenn Murphy VIA E-MAIL TO: trackstar101M@yahoo.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 Fianancial Services Civil Remedy Notice Website RE: Christopher, Yaulanda, & Glenn Murphy / First Protective Insurance Company Date of Loss : February 4, 2024 Claim No. : 01000116558 CRN Filing No. : 804922 Policy No. : 9599389727 Address : 3015 Amalfi Drive, Orlando, FL 32820 Our File No. : 890.0115526 To Whom It May Concern: This office has been retained by First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Insurance (hereinafter “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 February 4, 2025, by or on behalf of Christopher Murphy, Yaulanda Murphy, & Glenn Murphy (“Insureds”). Frontline specifically denies each and every allegation contained in the Notice and asserts that the Notice fails to comply with the specificity requirements mandated by Florida Statute § 624.155. A civil remedy notice must set forth specific statutory provisions the insurer allegedly violated, the facts giving rise to the violation, the relevant policy language, and a statement that the notice is given to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by the statute. See Landers v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 234 So. 3d 856, 858 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). Similarly, 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 60-day statutory period. See Lane v. Westfield Insurance Company, 862 So.2d 774 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). It is Frontline’s position that the CRN filed by the Insureds is deficient pursuant to Florida Statute § 624.155(3)(b), which states: The [civil remedy] 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: 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. (emphasis added.) Frontline objects to the filing of the Notice because the Insureds failed to comply with section 624.155(3)(b)(2), Fla. Stat., which requires that the Notice include the facts and circumstances giving rise to each violation. While the Notice contains some statements relating to the loss, there are no facts alleged that support or provide notice to the carrier of the specific violations complained of. Many of the alleged violations appear to be a boilerplate recitation of the statute and general conclusory allegations that do not contain any factual support. For example, the Notice alleges the Insureds promptly reported the loss but fail to address the fact that the claim was reported six (6) months after the alleged date of loss. The Insureds also alleged they complied with all-post loss obligations under the policy but ignore the fact that Frontline had issued requests for information and reservation of rights letters during the adjustment of the claim which requested the Insureds provide additional information and documentation. The Notice also fails to address the fact that the Insureds failed to provide Frontline with all of the requested information and documentation, as well as a completed sworn proof of loss. In fact, the sworn proof of loss submitted by the Insureds did not include any monetary amounts or items being claimed for the subject claim. However, the Notice now alleges that the Insureds submitted an estimate totaling $83,538.03 but Frontline had yet to receive a copy of the same. As such, the Notice is vague and insufficient to put Frontline on notice as to what it allegedly did wrong and fails to address the facts of the claim. Instead, the Notice is full of conclusory allegations that are devoid of any factual support, which evidences the generic nature of the Insureds’ Notice and how it fails to provide specificity as to the facts and circumstances of the subject claim. The Insureds’ allegations are solely based on the fact that the claim was denied. However, an insurer that denies payment on a claim is not guilty of bad faith as a matter of law. Vest v. Travelers Ins. Co., 753 So.2d 1270, 1275 (Fla. 2000). Rather, “[t]he insurer has a right to deny claims that it in good faith believes are not owed on a policy.” Id. A good faith denial precludes liability “[e]ven when it is later determined by a court or arbitration that the insurer . . . was mistaken.” Id. Failure to provide such specificity is direct and clear noncompliance with the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 624.155 and renders the Notice deficient on its face as to form and substance. Indeed, the lack of factual specificity leaves uncertainty as to how to cure the alleged bad-faith conduct. See Valenti v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., No. 8:04-cv-1615-T-30TGW, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36880, at *7 (M.D. Fla. June 6, 2006) (The purpose of the civil remedy notice is to provide insurers one last opportunity to settle a claim with the insured to avoid unnecessary litigation). The Insureds also failed to comply with section 624.155(3)(b)(4), Fla. Stat., which requires reference to specific policy language. Notably, the Notice does not list any specific policy provisions. In fact, the Notice specifically lists the preamble for Section I – Perils Insured Against, which fails to provide any specificity as to what specific policy language the Insureds are relying upon in support of the purported violations. Therefore, the Insureds’ failure to list any policy language relevant to the alleged violations fails to comply with section 624.155(3)(b)(4), Fla. Stat. See Julien v. United Prop. & Cas, Ins. Co., 2020 Fla. App, LEXIS 13520 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (citing fox v. Starr Indemn. & Liab. Co., No, 8:16-CV-3254-T-23MAP-2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65123, 2017 WL 1541294, at *2 (M.D. Fla, April 28, 2017)) (an insurer’s listing of whole sections of the insurance policy in a civil remedy notice “appear[ed] to lack specificity”). As such, Frontline was not provided with notice of the specific policy language that it allegedly failed to comply with. The Notice 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. Additionally, as described in detail above, the facts alleged in the Notice are overbroad and conclusory and do not contain any specific factual support for the alleged violations. Frontline, therefore, is unable to ascertain the reasons for the alleged statutory violations from the Notice rendering the Notice deficient. For these reasons, the Notice should be denied and rejected. With regard to the facts of the claim, the subject loss was reported on August 28, 2024 with a reported date of loss of February 4, 2024. Thus, the claim was reported over six (6) months after the alleged date of loss. In order to adjust and investigate the claim, Frontline requested documentation and information, including a sworn proof of loss and documentation supporting the Insureds’ claim for damages. Frontline also had the property inspected by an independent adjuster and by an engineer. During the adjustment of the claim, Frontline issued several letters requesting information and also issued a reservation of rights letter on September 23, 2024, which requested information and documentation needed for the adjustment of the claim. However, the Insureds failed to provide all of the requested information, including a completed sworn proof of loss. Based on its investigation and adjustment of the claim, Frontline determined that there was no coverage for the Insureds’ claim under the terms and conditions of the policy and issued correspondence to the Insureds and/or their representatives dated January 20, 2025 explaining the coverage determination. Therefore, in spite of the Insureds’ failure to cooperate with the terms and conditions of the policy, Frontline investigated the claim based on all of the information available to it and found that there was no coverage pursuant to the terms and conditions of the policy. The Insureds allege various reasons why this Notice was filed and also allege multiple statutory violations; however, no specific facts or circumstances are provided to support these allegations. As previously stated, the Notice is simply a recitation of general, and unsupported allegations of bad faith conduct which are not specifically alleged or described. Frontline specifically denies that it has violated any of these sections and denies all other allegations of bad faith or improper claims handling in this matter. However, notwithstanding these allegations, the Insureds fail to provide factual support for these alleged violations within the body of the Notice. Nonetheless, Frontline denies the following allegations made by the Insureds in the Notice: Claim Denial: Frontline denies this allegation. The Insureds fail to submit any facts or circumstances in support of this alleged violation. As demonstrated in the factual summary set forth above, Frontline promptly investigated the loss and properly sent a coverage determination letter to the Insureds in compliance with its duties and obligations under the subject policy of insurance. Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer: Frontline denies any allegation pertaining to any unsatisfactory settlement offer with regard to the subject claim. The Insured fails to submit any facts or circumstances in support of this alleged violation. As demonstrated in the factual summary set forth above, Frontline’s investigation of the claim revealed that there was no coverage for the Insured’s claim under the terms and conditions of the policy. The Insured’s assertions to the contrary lack support. Unfair Trade Practice: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. The Insureds 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, adjustment, or disposition of this claim. Fla. Stat. §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 Insureds. As shown in the factual summary above, the conduct of Frontline following its receipt of the first notice of the loss has been compliant with all aspects of Florida law. Frontline promptly investigated the claim, made a coverage determination based on the applicable policy language and Florida law, and promptly advised the Insureds of the determination. Frontline asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligations set forth in the subject insurance policy. Fla. Stat. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Denied. This allegation is without basis. 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. The Insureds’ assertions to the contrary lack support. Fla. Stat. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c): Denied. There is no showing by the Insureds to support this baseless allegation of failing to acknowledge or act properly upon communications with respect to the claim. As shown in the detailed factual summary above, Frontline was forthcoming with the Insureds at all times material hereto and acted as promptly as possible under the circumstances to advise the Insured of its coverage decisions. The Insureds do not submit any facts or circumstances in support of this alleged violation. Moreover, Frontline asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligations set forth in the subject insurance policy. Fla. Stat. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d): Denied. This allegation is without basis. As demonstrated above, Frontline asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Frontline promptly investigated the claim, made a coverage determination based on the applicable policy language and Florida law, and promptly advised the Insureds of the determination. The Insureds have submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. Fla. Stat. § 627.70131(7)(a): Denied. There is no showing by the Insureds to support this baseless allegation. As previously mentioned in the facts above, Frontline issued a reservation of rights letter on September 23, 2024 which advised the Insureds the claim was going to be handled under a reservation of rights. The allegation that Frontline failed to make a coverage determination within the legally required timeframe is meritless, as there were factors beyond its control preventing timely action, as demonstrated by the facts above. The Insureds own actions and/or inactions also delayed the adjustment of the subject claim. Moreover, Frontline asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligations set forth in the subject insurance policy. Frontline has adjusted the loss and damages claimed by the Insureds to the extent possible and determined that there was no coverage under the subject policy based on its investigation and the information available to it, in spite of the Insureds’ failure to cooperate. Furthermore, Frontline has acted reasonably in adjusting the loss based on the information available to it and the terms of the subject policy. Frontline conducted a reasonable and diligent investigation to assess the damages in this loss, and promptly communicated with the Insureds throughout the investigation—all within the mandates of Florida law. Throughout the handling of the Insureds’ insurance claim, Frontline has acted in good faith towards the interests of its Insureds. Frontline investigated the loss in accordance with the policy provisions and standard claims handling practices. Frontline, therefore, denies any allegations to the contrary. In further response to the Notice, Frontline denies the allegations therein and denies that it has violated any Florida Statute, rule, law, or other authority in its handling of the Insureds’ claim. We trust that the foregoing is sufficient to advise of Frontline’s position with regard to the Civil Remedy Notice filed by the Insureds. If any additional information is required, please feel free to contact the undersigned regarding same. Very truly yours, CHARTWELL LAW By: Shawn E. Devendorf Shawn E. Devendorf
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