Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     805181
Filing Accepted:  2/5/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
BACK   First Name   JENNIFER
Street Address * 4476 MCINTOSH LAKE AVE
City, State Zip * SARASOTA, FL 34233
Email Address * DRJENIFERB@AOL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   BACK   First Name   JENNIFER
Policy # * SJ31087878 Claim #* 202410006684
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* NIPPS First Name * ROBERT Initial L
Street Address* 203 FORT WADE RD. SUITE 260
City, State Zip* PONTE VEDRA , FL 32081
Email Address * RNIPPS@WOOLSEYMORCOM.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):* STEPHANIE CLARK (FLA. ADJ. LIC. #W290209
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
Unfair Trade Practice
Other : Wrongful claim denial
Other : Unfair claim settlement practices
Other : Unreasonable investigation
Other : Failure to act on claim
Other : Failure to conduct a reasonable investigation based on available information
Other : Failure to maintain proper complaint handling procedures
Other : Misrepresenting the insurance policy provisions to the insured
Other : Misrepresenting Florida statutory provisions to the insured
Other : Misrepresenting facts to the insured
Other : Failure to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims
Other : Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information
Other : Failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and, as to partial coverage, the dolla
Other : Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of the basis in the i
Other : Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of
Other : Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such informat
Other : Failing to pay undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed under first-party property insura
* 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)(2) A material misrepresentation made to an insured or any other person having an interest in the proceeds payable under such contract or policy, for the purpose and with the intent of effecting settlement of such claims, loss, or damage under such contract or policy on less favorable terms than those provided in, and contemplated by, such contract or policy.
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)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e) Failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and, as to partial coverage, the dollar amount or extent of coverage, or failing to provide a written statement that the claim is being investigated, upon the written request of the insured within 30 days after proof-of-loss statements have been completed.
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.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g) Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h) Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary.
626.9541(1)(i)(4) Failing to pay undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed under first-party property insurance policies within 60 days after an insurer receives notice of a residential property insurance claim, determines the amounts of partial or full benefits, and agrees to coverage, unless payment of the undisputed benefits is prevented by factors beyond the control of the insurer as defined in s. 627.70131(5).
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

624.155(1)(a)(1) – violating 626.9541(1)(i) 626.9541(1)(a)(1) -- misrepresenting the terms of an insurance policy. 626.9541(1)(i) -- unfair claim settlement practices. SECTION I – PERILS INSURED AGAINST A. Coverage A – Dwelling And Coverage B – Other Structures 1. We insure against risk of direct physical loss to property described in Coverages A and B. **** [A]ny any ensuing loss to property described in Coverages A and B not precluded by any other provision in this policy is covered. **** B. Coverage C – Personal Property We insure for direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage C caused by any of the following perils unless the loss is excluded in Section I – Exclusions. 1. Fire Or Lightning 2. Windstorm Or Hail **** D. Coverage D – Loss Of Use The limit of liability for Coverage D is the total limit for the coverages in 1. Additional Living Expense, 2. Fair Rental Value and 3. Civil Authority Prohibits Use below. **** E. Additional Coverages 1. Debris Removal a. We will pay your reasonable expense for the removal of: (1) Debris of covered property if a Peril Insured Against that applies to the damaged property causes the loss; or (2) Ash, dust or particles from a volcanic eruption that has caused direct loss to a building or property contained in a building. This expense is included in the limit of liability that applies to the damaged property. If the amount to be paid for the actual damage to the property plus the debris removal expense is more than the limit of liability for the damaged property, an additional 5% of that limit is available for such expense. b. We will also pay your reasonable expense, up to $1,000, for the removal from the "residence premises" of: (1) Your tree(s) felled by the peril of Windstorm or Hail or Weight of Ice, Snow or Sleet; or (2) A neighbor's tree(s) felled by a Peril Insured Against under Coverage C; provided the tree(s): (3) Damage(s) a covered structure; or (4) Does not damage a covered structure, but: (a) Block(s) a driveway on the "residence premises" which prevent(s) a "motor vehicle", that is registered for use on public roads or property, from entering or leaving the "residence premises"; or (b) Block(s) a ramp or other fixture designed to assist a handicapped person to enter or leave the dwelling building. The $1,000 limit is the most we will pay in any one loss regardless of the number of fallen trees. No more than $500 of this limit will be paid for the removal of any one tree. This coverage is additional insurance. **** 2. Reasonable Repairs a. We will pay the reasonable cost incurred by you for the necessary measures taken solely to protect covered property that is damaged by a Peril Insured Against from further damage. b. If the measures taken involve repair to other damaged property, we will only pay if that property is covered under this policy and the damage is caused by a Peril Insured Against. 11. Ordinance and Law a. You may use up to 25% of the limit of liability that applies to Coverage A for the increased costs you incur due to the enforcement of any ordinance or law which requires or regulates: (1) The construction, demolition, remodeling, renovation or repair of that part of a covered building or other structure damaged by a Peril Insured Against; (2) The demolition and reconstruction of the undamaged part of a covered building or other structure, when that building or other structure must be totally demolished because of damage by a Peril Insured Against to another part of that covered building or other structure; or (3) The remodeling, removal or replacement of the portion of the undamaged part of a covered building or other structure necessary to complete the remodeling, repair or replacement of that part of the covered building or other structure damaged by a Peril Insured Against. “Fungi,” Wet Or Dry Rot, Or Bacteria. a. We will pay up to $10,000 for: (1) The total of all loss payable under Section I – Property Coverages caused by “fungi,” wet or dry rot, or bacteria; (2) The cost to remove “fungi,” wet or dry rot, or bacteria from property covered under Section I – Property Coverages; (3) The cost to tear out and replace any part of the building or other covered property as needed to gain access to the “fungi,” wet or dry rot, or bacteria; and (4) The cost of testing of air or property to confirm the absence, presence, level of “Fungi,” Wet or Dry Rot or Bacteria whether performed prior to, during or after: (a) Removal; (b) Repair; (c) Restoration; or (d) Replacement. The cost of such testing will be provided only to the extent that there is a reason to believe that there is the presence of “fungi,” wet or dry rot, yeast or bacteria. **** Also refer to: Coverage A provision, coverage B provision, coverage C provision, coverage D provision, all additional coverages provisions, all coverages provided by endorsement or rider, the declarations page, loss payment or settlement provision, duties in event of loss policy provision, all terms and conditions of section I of the insurance policy, the insurance policy definitions section, the insurance policy‘s exclusion of coverage provisions, all insurance policy provisions that provide coverage to the insured property, and all policy provisions
 
* 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 Company (“SLIDE”) has committed the following in handling the insured’s claim: 1) failure to pay benefits owed; 2) failure to act in due diligence and good faith to resolve claims; 3) placing the financial interest of the insurer before that of the policy holder and claimant; 4) failure to properly train, evaluate, and manage adjusters retained to represent the policies and procedures of SLIDE; 5) looking for ways to delay benefit payments and otherwise “low ball” or “stone wall” claims; 6) looking for ways to deny the insured’s claim; 7) looking for ways to reduce recovery to the insured; 8) failure to perform a reasonable investigation; 9) misrepresenting Florida statutory provisions to its insured; 10) misrepresenting insurance policy provisions to the insured; 11) SLIDE has failed and refused to acknowledge coverage and promptly pay the benefits due and owed to the insured; 12) the reasons for this may be attributed to improper training, supervision, and/or motivation of outside adjusters and claims supervisors to promptly and fairly adjust and pay full benefits available to the insured. The insurer may have failed to adopt proper standards of investigation and adjustment of losses or is otherwise not implementing those standards because a proper investigation and full and prompt payment for the loss is not occurring. In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. SLIDE has breached this duty by its adjustment of the insured’s claim of loss. SLIDE has failed to create and implement adequate guidelines for proper investigation to evaluate claims handling and for training and supervision of employees resulting in violations as set forth above. SLIDE has failed and/or refused to thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigate and evaluate the insured’s insurance claim for damages. Despite the insured’s timely notification to SLIDE of their insurance claim, SLIDE has failed and refused to acknowledge the covered loss and pay all amounts due and owing to the insured under the policy of insurance. SLIDE has failed to promptly settle the insured’s insurance claim, when the obligation to settle the claim had become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance, in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage. Despite the insured’s pleas otherwise, SLIDE has failed and refused to acknowledge its obligation to tender all insurance proceed monies due and owing the insured or assist the insured in mitigation of the damages. In exchange for a premium paid by the insured, SLIDE issued the subject insurance policy which provided coverage for the insured property for “risk of direct physical loss to property described in Coverages A and B.” As such, the subject all-risk Policy contains coverage for all direct physical losses to the insured property unless the loss is specifically and unambiguously excluded from coverage by the Policy. On or about September 27, 2024, the insured property suffered a windstorm loss (Hurricane Helene), and the insured immediately submitted a claim to SLIDE for property damage, i.e., storm and wind damage throughout the insured property. Hence, the insured suffered a substantial loss regarding the real property and continue to suffer such loss. Having suffered such substantial damage, the insured promptly notified SLIDE of the loss in an effort to mitigate the current damage and prevent the exacerbation of any additional losses. The desired result did not follow. SLIDE since being presented the Insured’s claim has misrepresented policy provisions to avoid paying the insured what they are owed under the policy. Ultimately, SLIDE has failed and refused to properly settle the insured’s claim in good faith. The insured have requested that SLIDE conduct an investigation, admit coverage, and pay damages; SLIDE has failed and refused to do so. In short, SLIDE has failed to handle its insured’s claim in good faith in violation of Fla. Stat. 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3), and 626.9541(1)(i). SLIDE nevertheless sent correspondence to the insured dated November 29, 2024 (signed by SLIDE’s adjuster, Stephanie Clark (Fla. Adj. Lic. #W290209) confirming partial coverage, denying the remainder, under-scoping, underpaying at an amount less than the Insured’s deductible. As such, no payment was made to the Insured. In regard to insurance contracts, a specific refusal to pay a claim is the breach which triggers the cause of action. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d 885, 892 (Fla. 2003); Donovan v. SLIDE Fire and Cas. Co., 574 So. 2d 285, 286 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1991) (finding that a breach of contract takes place at the moment the insurance company refuses to pay a claim). Therefore, SLIDE breached the Policy. Moreover, SLIDE’s argued exclusions and/or limitations to coverage are devoid of anti-concurrent causation language. Thus, “coverage may exist where an insured risk constitutes a concurrent cause of the loss even when it is not the prime or efficient cause.” Sebo v. Am. Home Assurance Co., Inc., 208 So. 3d 694, 699 (Fla. 2016). In addition, under the Policy, any ensuing loss to property not excluded or excepted in this policy is covered. Hence, there are a myriad of coverages under the Policy that would provide coverage for the loss. Nevertheless, SLIDE failed and refused to acknowledge the covered loss and pay all amounts due and owing for the loss. Therefore, SLIDE breached the Policy. Questioning the propriety of SLIDE’s partial coverage denial, and given the extensive nature of the physical damage, the Insured retained a loss consultant, Coastal Claims Services LLC (“Coastal”), to perform an investigation and damage evaluation in accordance with industry standards and Florida law. Based on its investigation, Coastal determined that a hurricane on or about September 27, 2024, caused damage to the exterior and interior of the insured property. Moreover, Coastal determined that at least $109,734.05 worth of repairs would be required to return the property to its pre-loss condition as a result of the hurricane loss. Nevertheless, SLIDE failed and refused to acknowledge the full extent of the covered loss and pay all amounts due and owing under the Policy. Therefore, SLIDE breached the Policy through its continued failure to acknowledge the covered loss and pay all amounts due and owing under the Policy. As such, SLIDE’S coverage determination is a blatant misrepresentation of the available coverages under the Policy in direct violation of Fla. Stats. 626.9541(1)(a)(1), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(a)(1), and 626.9541(1)(i)(2) and is nothing more than a mere pretext to wrongfully deny and delay this claim. As a result, SLIDE has materially misrepresented the coverages under the subject policy to the insured for the purpose and with the intent of effecting settlement of the insured’s claim on less favorable terms than those provided in, and contemplated by, the subject policy in direct violation of Fla. Stat. § 626.9541(1)(i)(2). Further, SLIDE is in violation of Florida statutes §§ 626.9541(1)(a)(1), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), and 626.9541(1)(a)(1) by misrepresenting pertinent facts and insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue; and also in violation of Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) by denying the insured’s claim without conducting a reasonable investigation based upon available information. In summary, the insured’s loss is clearly covered by the terms of the policy of insurance with SLIDE. However, SLIDE chose to deny coverage for the insured’s loss. Despite clear evidence that the damage was covered and caused by a covered peril, the claim was denied. To date, SLIDE continues to deny the insured and its insured full indemnity for the claim. While SLIDE refuses to honor this claim, a jury in Sarasota County will likely do what SLIDE has refused; exercise the benefit of doubt in favor of the insured in finding full coverage for this loss. Indeed, the insured will undoubtedly meet the burden of proof at trial, under the SLIDE all-risk policy, to show that, while SLIDE provided insurance coverage, damage occurred to the insured property. See Jones v. Federated Nat'l Ins. Co., 235 So. 3d 936, 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). With the data presented within SLIDE’s investigation and Coastal’s investigation, SLIDE’s burden to demonstrate by the greater weight of the evidence that all the physical damage to the insured property was caused solely by excluded perils under the policy and not in combination with a covered peril has not and cannot be met. See Sebo v. Am. Home Assurance Co., Inc., 208 So. 3d 694 (Fla. 2016). Despite clear indicators of covered damage, SLIDE nevertheless inexplicably denied the insured’s claim. As of today, SLIDE has failed and refused to inform the insured of their rights under the policy of insurance and Florida statutes, has improperly delayed the insured’s claim, has wrongfully denied the insured’s claim, and has failed and refused to adequately indemnify the insured for the loss and defiantly continues to do so. Indeed, from the time of receiving the claim, SLIDE has purposely and maliciously delayed in adjusting the subject claim in an effort to either avoid paying the claim altogether or, at the very least, avoid paying the full extent of the loss. Notably, under Florida law, “[t]he filing of a lawsuit does not extinguish the insurer’s obligations under the policy to adjust and pay the claim.” Tristar Lodging, Inc. V. Arch Specialty Ins. Co., 434 F. Supp. 2d 1286, 1289 (M.D. Fla. 2006). To date, the insured has made a good faith effort to comply with all of the requirements under the subject policy of insurance, and it is only fair that SLIDE do the same. Yet, that is not the case. The insured feels that the insured property is a valuable asset, and, by continuously delaying the proper handling of this claim, SLIDE is putting the insured property at risk. As a responsible property owner, the insured purchased insurance to protect the property, paid all of the premiums, and have kept up to date with the responsibilities under the policy. Yet, when the insured needed to rely on the insurance because of this unforeseen loss, SLIDE turned its back and delayed and wrongfully denied coverage that the insured is rightfully owed. Ultimately, SLIDE has failed and refused to properly investigate the loss. The insured has requested that SLIDE admit coverage and pay damages, SLIDE has failed and refused to do so, and continues to refuse to fully indemnify the insured for the loss and pay the amounts necessary to properly repair the insured’s property, despite knowing it is required to do so. In short, SLIDE has failed to handle its insured’s claim in good faith. In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust; SLIDE has breached this duty by its insufficient adjustment of the insured’s claim. SLIDE has failed to create and implement adequate guidelines for proper investigation to evaluate claims handling and for training and supervision of employees resulting in statutory violations set forth above. SLIDE has failed and/or refused to thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigate and evaluate the insured’s insurance claim for damages. 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 upon determinable contingencies. Inherent is the fact that payment must be made timely and promptly so that the insured may mitigate their damages to put them back into the position they were prior to loss as quickly as possible. SLIDE breached this duty. The actions taken by SLIDE in the handling / adjustment of the insured’s claim were willful, wanton, and with complete disregard for the rights of its insured and occur with such a frequency as to indicate a general business practice and are in violation of Fla. Stat. 624.155 and 626.9541. SLIDE’S actions amount to but are not limited to the following: 1. Claim delay 2. Wrongful claim denial 3. Unfair trade practice 4. Unfair claim settlement practices 5. Unreasonable investigation 6. Failure to act on claim 7. Failure to conduct a reasonable investigation based on available information 8. Failure to maintain proper complaint handling procedures 9. Misrepresenting the insurance policy provisions to the insured 10. Misrepresenting Florida statutory provisions to the insured 11. Misrepresenting facts to the insured 12. Failure to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims 13. Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information 14. Failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and, as to partial coverage, the dollar amount or extent of coverage, or failing to provide a written statement that the claim is being investigated, upon the written request of the insured within 30 days after proof-of-loss statements have been completed. 15. 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. 16. Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim. 17. Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary. 18. Failing to pay undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed under first-party property insurance policies within 90 days after an insurer receives notice of a residential property insurance claim, determines the amounts of partial or full benefits, and agrees to coverage, unless payment of the undisputed benefits is prevented by an act of God, prevented by the impossibility of performance, or due to actions by the insured or claimant that constitute fraud, lack of cooperation, or intentional misrepresentation regarding the claim for which benefits are owed. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this civil remedy notice, SLIDE must: (1): Admit full coverage for the insured’s loss; (2): Tender all insurance monies due and owing to the insured for the loss under the subject Policy; (3): Pay statutory interest on the amount of unpaid contract damages from the date of loss to the present time pursuant to Florida statute 627.70131; and (4): Pay the insured’s attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Florida Statute § 627.428 and/or § 626.9373. A copy of this form submitted to the FDFS has been emailed and/or uploaded and also printed out and mailed to the following parties providing them notice of the filing of this civil remedy notice: Slide Insurance Company 4221 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Ste 200 Tampa, FL 33607 claims@slideins.com slideclaims@seibels.com
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
mthornton@slideinsurance.com 04-03-2025 Via E-mail & Posting on DFS Website Robert Nipps, Esq. Woolsey Morcom 203 Fort Wade Rd, Ste 260 Ponte Vedra, FL 32081 rnipps@woolseymorcom.com Complainant: Jennifer Back Insured: Jennifer Back Claim No: 202410006684 Policy No: SJ31087878 CRN Filing No.: 805181 Dear Robert Nipps: Please allow this correspondence to serve as Slide Insurance Company’s (“Slide”)’s response to the Civil Remedy Notice (“CRN”) filed on behalf of Jennifer Diaz Cordero (“Insured”). The CRN was accepted by the Department on February 5, 2025. Without waiving any challenge to the sufficiency of the CRN, and specifically subject to a reservation of all rights and defenses herein, Slide denies that it violated Florida Statutes or any other codes, regulations, and/or rules in this matter. Slide challenges the validity of the subject CRN as it fails to identify the specific policy terms the Insured claims Slide failed to follow nor does Complainant provide specific facts regarding the basis of the asserted violations; rather, the CRN makes conclusory statements without legal or factual support. See, e.g., Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So.3d 875, 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021); Demase v. State Farm Florida Ins. Co., 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 to the Insured for property located at 4476 McIntosh Lake Avenue, Sarasota, Florida, in effect for the period from May 31, 2024 to May 30, 2025, (the “Policy”). On October 5, 2024, the Insured filed a claim for wind damage to their property from Hurricane Helene. Specifically, the Insured stated there was a leak in one bedroom. The date of loss was reported as September 27, 2024. Slide acknowledged receipt of the claim and assigned a licensed field adjuster to inspect the property. Despite multiple attempts to contact the Insured, none of the desk adjuster’s or field adjuster’s messages received a response. In a letter dated October 15, 2024, Slide advised of the prior attempts to contact the Insured and requested the Insured contact Slide as soon as possible to proceed with the investigation of the claim. Access was provided to the property on October 22, 2024 – more than two (2) weeks after the claim was reported. During the inspection, the field adjuster documented staining to the guest bedroom ceiling. No evidence of wind or storm damage was present to the exterior elevations of the property. In furtherance of its investigation, Slide also retained a licensed roofing consultant, Precision Claim Solutions LLC (“PCS”) to complete an assessment of the roof. Based on the on-site inspection on November 15, 2024, PCS concluded wind damage was present to four (4) roof tiles. PCS confirmed compatible tiles were available and the roof was in suitable condition for repairs. In a letter dated November 29, 2024, Slide notified the Insured that the claim was covered, however, the cost to repair the roof and guest bedroom ceiling was less than the Policy’s deductible; therefore, no payment was due or owing in accordance with the Loss Settlement provisions of the Policy. On or about December 11, 2024, the Coastal Claims Services Inc. (“Public Adjuster”), submitted a letter of representation on the Insured’s behalf. The desk adjuster assigned to the claim acknowledged the Public Adjuster’s representation of the Insured and requested information regarding their claims, including but not limited to, records of any completed repairs, photographs of the claimed damage, and any mitigation documents. The Public Adjuster sent photographs showing missing and / or torn screen panels on the Insured’s screened enclosure. Slide revised the estimate to include repairs to the screened enclosure and advised the Insured and / or their Public Adjuster on December 30, 2024, that the damages still fell below the Policy’s deductible. No further documentation was received until January 7, 2025, when the Insured’s Public Adjuster submitted an estimate prepared by Zane Wood (credentials not noted) claiming $109,234.05, including a full roof replacement, under the reported loss. Notably, the Public Adjuster’s estimate failed to accurately calculate depreciation of the alleged costs nor were any invoices, quotes, and / or contracts showing the Insured completed repairs to the property or had incurred any costs in excess of those already paid under this claim. Slide acknowledged receipt of the estimate in an email on January 27, 2025, and advised the Insured’s Public Adjuster that due to the lack of evidence to support the demand for a full roof replacement, no further coverage was warranted. This Civil Remedy Notice followed on February 5, 2025. To date, neither the Insured nor their representatives have presented any information that would alter Slide’s understanding of the loss and coverage. 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 and incomplete. The Insured has presented no evidence to support the allegations of claim delay, wrongful denial, unfair settlement practices, unfair trade practice, or any other violations of Florida Law or the Policy. Thus, these assertions are without merit and are categorically denied, without limitation. 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)(2), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h), and 626.9541(1)(i)(4), Fla. Stats. Notwithstanding any challenges to the CRN’s sufficiency, and specifically subject to a reservation of all defenses and/or rights herein, 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. As detailed in the above narrative, the facts will demonstrate that Slide employed proper and customary claims practices in the adjustment of this claim including, but not limited to, promptly contacting the Insured to complete an inspection of the Insured’s property, timely communications with the Insured and/or their representatives, and providing written explanations of the coverage decisions and factual basis for same. Following the investigation, the Insured was notified of the coverage decision in writing pursuant to the Policy’s terms, conditions, endorsements, limitations, and exclusions. Upon receipt of photographs of damage to additional areas not previously reported, specifically the screened pool enclosure, Slide reopened the claim for further investigation and requested information from the Insured to substantiate their claims. Neither the Insured nor their representatives have presented any information to support their claims nor demonstrating that they have incurred repair costs in excess of the claim payments already made. Therefore, pursuant to the Loss Settlement provisions of the Policy, no further payment is due or owing. Accordingly, Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it.  CONCLUSION In conclusion, the documented facts of this claim 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 in law or under 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