Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     805264
Filing Accepted:  2/5/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
ALONDA BILLINGS AND DARRYL BILLINGS   First Name  
Street Address * 43002 MORRIS DR
City, State Zip * CALLAHAN, FL 32011
Email Address * ALONDABILLINGS@GMAIL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   ALONDA BILLINGS AND DARRYL BILLINGS   First Name  
Policy # * 80GZ03735 Claim #* 59­71C2­62D
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* DRAKE First Name * VICTORIA Initial
Street Address* 2300 MAITLAND CENTER PKWY STE. 106
City, State Zip* MAITLAND , FL 32751
Email Address * VDRAKE@SERRANOCAGAN.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10739
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* N/A
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
Claim Delay
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.
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.
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)(i) Failing to pay personal injury protection insurance claims within the time periods required by s. 627.736(4)(b).
* 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 – PROPERTY COVERAGE A. Coverage A – Dwelling (Entire Section) B. Coverage B – Other Structures (Entire Section) C. Coverage C – Personal Property (Entire Section) D. Coverage D – Loss of Use (Entire Section).
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

On or about 05/10/2024, ALONDA BILLINGS AND DARRYL BILLINGS ("Insured"), sustained a covered direct physical loss to Insured's property due to weather. Insured reported the loss thereafter to STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY ("Insurer"). Prior to the date of loss, Insurer issued a policy of insurance, believed to be policy # 80GZ03735 which afforded coverage for the aforementioned property for losses caused by the covered peril. The policy was in full force and effect on the date of loss. The Insured promptly notified Insurer of the loss, who then assigned the loss claim # 59­71C2­62D. Insurer was fully afforded any and all opportunity to inspect the loss and document the loss. To date, Insurer has paid $0 to Insured on this claim even after numerous attempts by the Insured to provide documentation of additional damages and compensation owed. Insured had no choice but to retain legal representation on or about 12/10/2024, as the Insurer refused to pay the full amount due and owed to its Insured. Insurer has continually failed to negotiate this claim with Insured’s attorney and/or failed to provide a satisfactory settlement offer to resolve the subject claim. This has severely harmed the Insured's ability to remedy their losses and continue with repairs to the property. The only purpose for Insurer's refusal to negotiate the claim is to increase profits and harm their insured. This is either done intentionally as a pattern and practice of Insurer to deny coverage and harm their insureds, or Insurer has failed to properly train and supervise its adjusters to the harm and detriment of their insureds. This pattern and practice is done for only one reason, which again, is to maximize profits and harm their insureds. Insurer has violated the following statutory provisions: 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)(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)(3)(i): Unfair claim settlement practices, and any other applicable statutes to the factual allegations included herein. To remedy and/or cure this CRN, Insurer must immediately tender payment in the amount of $58,461.00 less any applicable deductible and prior payment to the Insured to complete the repairs for the Insured property. The payment shall be tendered to the Insured’s attorneys, Serrano Cagan & Cagan at 2300 Maitland Center Parkway, Suite 106, Maitland, Florida 32751.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
iandreacchi@hamiltonmillerlaw.com 03-27-2025 This correspondence constitutes State Farm Florida Insurance Company (hereinafter “State Farm”), response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation filed on behalf of Alonda Billings and Darryl Billings (also referred to as “Complainants”) regarding the claim listed above. State Farm welcomes the opportunity to respond to this Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation and specifically denies each and every allegation contained in the Civil Remedy Notice filed in relation to this claim. With that said, State Farm believes the Civil Remedy Notice you filed fails to comply with the specific notice and information requirements as set forth in Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation document provisions as set forth in Florida Statute §624.155, and Florida Case law. The CRN asserts the following reasons for the notice: • Claim Denial • Claim Delay • Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer • Unfair Trade Practice Further, the CRN alleges State Farm violated the following Florida statutes: 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. 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)(i) Failing to pay personal injury protection insurance claims within the time periods required by s. 627.736(4)(b). The Notice fails to name any individual(s) involved in the alleged violation as required by Florida Statute § 624.155(3)(b)3. This failure to identify specific individuals allegedly involved to the purported violations prevents State Farm from addressing any issues regarding all individuals and is one of the reasons why the Notice does not comply with F.S. § 624.155. The Civil Remedy Notice requires the Complainant “pursuant to section 624.155, F.S. please indicate all statutory provisions alleged to have been violated.” The Civil Remedy Notice you filed in this matter includes almost every reason for Notice that could be claimed against an insurance company, regardless of whether they are relevant or applicable to the alleged facts contained in the Civil Remedy Notice. The Notice includes Florida Statute § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i); related to personal injury protection, which is not a coverage afforded under a homeowners property insurance policy and not related to the subject loss. Additionally, that is not the correct language of the Statute. Also, the Notice fails to set forth any specific policy language alleged to have been violated in accordance with Florida Statute §624.155(3)(b)(4). The Notice contains titles of portions of the policy but not the actual policy language alleged to have been violated. This failure to identify any specific policy provision allegedly relevant to the purported violations prevents State Farm from addressing any issues regarding the policy and is another reason why it does not comply with F.S. § 624.155. This deficiency prevents State Farm from engaging in any meaningful review of the policy terms and conditions with which the Insured take issue. Thus, it is impossible for State Farm to determine how or which parts you are alleging were violated. State Farm cannot hit a moving target by attempting to determine which provisions of the policy are actually at issue in this CRN. As for public policy, this appears to be the exact purpose for the statutory requirement referenced above, which you have violated by failing to provide any policy language at issue. Nonetheless, State Farm denies that it failed to comply with any policy provisions. In Talat Enterprises. Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So.2d 1278, 1284 (Fla. 2000), the Florida Supreme Court explained that “[i]n 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.” “The plain language of the statute clearly requires that an insured specify the statutory provision that it alleges an insurer violated.” Nowak v. Lexington Ins. Co., 464 F. Supp. 2d 1248, 1251 (S.D. Fla. 2006). Your failures to state with specificity the language of the statute that State Farm allegedly violated or the specific policy language that is relevant to the violation renders your CRN facially deficient. See Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So. 3d 875, 878 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (dismissing the lawsuit for failure to meet section 624.155’s specificity requirements for both statutes and policy language). For the foregoing reasons, the Notice should be rejected and returned by the Department, as it is facially invalid. Furthermore, and contrary to the requirement to “describe the facts and circumstances giving rise to the insurer’s violation as you understand them at this time,” the CRN itself provides unsupported and misleading allegations, many of which are asserted with no basis in fact. The purpose of the foregoing requirement is “to enable the insurer to investigate and resolve [the] claim” if at all possible. As sent, the CRN makes allegations that are, at best inaccurate or incomplete, at worst misleading, which makes the CRN lacking in the specificity required for a response by State Farm. For example, you allege that State Farm “failed refused to pay the full amount due and owed to its Insured,” “failed to negotiate this claim with Insured’s attorney and/or failed to provide a satisfactory settlement offer to resolve the subject claim,” and “the only purpose for Insurer's refusal to negotiate the claim is to increase profits and harm their insured,” but then you fail to comply with the law by not providing any facts or information to support such an allegation. On July 19, 2024 (two months and nine days after the alleged date of loss), a claim was reported to State Farm by the Complainants, alleging wind a damage to the roof; as well as, interior water damage. Contrary to Complainants’ allegation that the Complainants promptly notified of the loss, the claim was not promptly reported. State Farm inspected the property and investigated the damages alleged by the Complainants, who was present at the property at the time of the inspection. Based on the damages observed during the inspection, State Farm determined that the damages observed to the roof and property, were not the result of an accidental direct physical loss. In addition, the interior water damage to the ceilings of the living room and spare bedroom is consistent with having occurred over multiple rainstorm events as evidenced by the multiple water ring stains and the application of caulk and/or sealant observed to both skylights on the rear slope of the roof. On August 26, 2024, State Farm sent correspondence to Complainants detailing that the damages that were observed are not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy. State Farm’s investigation revealed that the damages to the property was the result of wind damage over multiple wind events, wear, tear, deterioration, and weathering over time. State Farm adequately investigated the loss and adjusted the claim in compliance with the terms and conditions of the policy. State Farm denies all the other allegations contained within the Civil Remedy as they are inaccurate and without merit. It is because the CRN clearly contains statutory provisions that are inapplicable to this matter, State Farm is unable to properly respond and the CRN should be rejected. These facts show that State Farm did not violate the statutory provisions referenced in the CRN. Furthermore, because the Insureds did not and cannot state any facts to support allegations of violations, the Notice is facially deficient. See, e.g., Apex Roofing & Restoration, LLC v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 343 So. 3d 1223, 1227 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Zaleski v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 315 So. 3d 7, 13 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). The CRN includes a narrative which is framed merely as a vague dispute over coverage. The CRN fails to allege specific acts by State Farm during the investigation and/or determination of the claim. The CRN lists eight provisions of Florida law, Fla. Stat. § 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i). However, the Complainant fails to allege any facts or circumstances giving rise to each or any of those alleged violations. State Farm denies all the allegations contained in the Civil Remedy Notice and denies it violated the aforementioned Florida Statutes. Claim Denial: There are no facts to support this allegation that State Farm wrongfully denied the Insured’s claim. There is a disagreement as to the coverage determination. As the facts above show, State Farm performed a prompt and thorough investigation before issuing its coverage decision in accordance with the results of the inspection and the policy terms, conditions, and limitations. State Farm determined that the damages observed to the roof and exterior of the property, were not the result of an accidental direct physical loss. State Farm determined that the damages to the property was the result of other conditions; including but not limited to wear, tear, deterioration; which are explicitly excluded from coverage under the policy. State Farm timely and promptly issued a coverage determination letter to the Insureds on August 26, 2024. Thereafter, the claim was closed without payment. Therefore, this reason is false, is conclusory, is without merit, and is denied. Claim Delay: There are no facts to support this allegation. State Farm conducted a prompt and thorough inspection once the claim was reported before issuing its coverage decision in accordance with the results of the inspection and the policy terms, conditions, and limitations in a timely manner. There were no delays in the handling of the Insureds’ claim. Therefore, this reason is unsupported, is conclusory, and is denied. Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer: This reason is unsupported by the facts or the CRN. The CRN provides conclusory allegations that State Farm failed to provide coverage. No specific allegations showing any alleged unsatisfactory settlement offer are contained in the CRN. As the facts above show, State Farm determined that the damages to the property was the result of other conditions; including but not limited to wear, tear, deterioration; which are explicitly excluded from coverage under the policy. State Farm timely and promptly issued a coverage determination letter to the Insureds on August 26, 2024. Thereafter, the claim was closed without payment. Therefore, this reason is false, is conclusory, is without merit, and is denied. Unfair Trade Practice: This reason is unsupported by the facts or the CRN. The CRN provides conclusory allegations that State Farm failed to provide coverage. No specific allegations showing any alleged unfair trade practices are contained in the CRN. As the facts above show, State Farm determined that the damages observed to the roof and exterior of the property, were not the result of an accidental direct physical loss. State Farm determined that the damages to the property was the result of other conditions; including but not limited to wear, tear, deterioration; which are explicitly excluded from coverage under the policy. State Farm timely and promptly issued a coverage determination letter to the Insureds on August 26, 2024. Thereafter, the claim was closed without payment. Therefore, this reason is false, is conclusory, is without merit, and is denied. Section 624.155(1)(b)(1), Florida Statutes: State Farm denies violation of section 624.155(1)(b)(1), because it made a good faith effort to appropriately investigate and evaluate the Insureds’ claim. State Farm has, at all times, acted in accordance with the terms, conditions, and coverages of the insurance policy. As previously stated, State Farm performed a prompt and thorough investigation before issuing its coverage decision in accordance with the results of the inspection and the policy terms, conditions, and limitations. State Farm determined that the damages observed to the roof and exterior of the property, were not the result of an accidental direct physical loss. State Farm determined that the damages to the property was the result of other conditions; including but not limited to wear, tear, deterioration; which are explicitly excluded from coverage under the policy. State Farm timely and promptly issued a coverage determination letter to the Insureds on August 26, 2024. Thereafter, the claim was closed without payment. Therefore, this reason is false, is conclusory, is without merit, and is denied. Section 624.155(1)(b)(3), Florida Statutes: State Farm denies violation of section 624.155(1)(b)(3), because it made a good faith and prompt coverage determination. State Farm has, at all times, acted in accordance with the terms, conditions, and coverages of the insurance policy. As previously stated, State Farm performed a prompt and thorough investigation before issuing its coverage decision in accordance with the results of the inspection and the policy terms, conditions, and limitations. State Farm determined that the damages observed to the roof and exterior of the property, were not the result of an accidental direct physical loss. State Farm determined that the damages to the property was the result of other conditions; including but not limited to wear, tear, deterioration; which are explicitly excluded from coverage under the policy. State Farm timely and promptly issued a coverage determination letter to the Insureds on August 26, 2024. Thereafter, the claim was closed without payment. Therefore, this reason is false, is conclusory, is without merit, and is denied. Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), Florida Statutes: State Farm denies violation of section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), as it has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of claims. As previously stated, State Farm performed a prompt and thorough investigation before issuing its coverage decision in accordance with the results of the inspection and the policy terms, conditions, and limitations. State Farm determined that the damages observed to the roof and exterior of the property, were not the result of an accidental direct physical loss. State Farm determined that the damages to the property was the result of other conditions; including but not limited to wear, tear, deterioration; which are explicitly excluded from coverage under the policy. State Farm timely and promptly issued a coverage determination letter to the Insureds on August 26, 2024. Thereafter, the claim was closed without payment. Therefore, this reason is false, is conclusory, is without merit, and is denied. Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), Florida Statutes: State Farm denies violation of section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c). There are no facts to support that State Farm to communicate with the Insured. As previously stated, State Farm performed a prompt and thorough investigation before issuing its coverage decision in accordance with the results of the inspection and the policy terms, conditions, and limitations. State Farm determined that the damages observed to the roof and exterior of the property, were not the result of an accidental direct physical loss. State Farm determined that the damages to the property was the result of other conditions; including but not limited to wear, tear, deterioration; which are explicitly excluded from coverage under the policy. State Farm timely and promptly issued a coverage determination letter to the Insureds on August 26, 2024. Thereafter, the claim was closed without payment. Therefore, this reason is false, is conclusory, is without merit, and is denied. Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), Florida Statutes: State Farm denies violation of section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), as it has conducted a reasonable investigation based on the information available to State Farm and properly investigated the claim. As previously stated, State Farm performed a prompt and thorough investigation before issuing its coverage decision in accordance with the results of the inspection and the policy terms, conditions, and limitations. State Farm determined that the damages observed to the roof and exterior of the property, were not the result of an accidental direct physical loss. State Farm determined that the damages to the property was the result of other conditions; including but not limited to wear, tear, deterioration; which are explicitly excluded from coverage under the policy. State Farm timely and promptly issued a coverage determination letter to the Insureds on August 26, 2024. Thereafter, the claim was closed without payment. Therefore, this reason is false, is conclusory, is without merit, and is denied. Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e), Florida Statutes: State Farm denies violation of section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e), as it has conducted a reasonable investigation based on the information available to State Farm and properly investigated the claim. State Farm promptly made a coverage determination based on the evidence observed at the property. As previously stated, State Farm performed a prompt and thorough investigation before issuing its coverage decision in accordance with the results of the inspection and the policy terms, conditions, and limitations. State Farm determined that the damages observed to the roof and exterior of the property, were not the result of an accidental direct physical loss. State Farm determined that the damages to the property was the result of other conditions; including but not limited to wear, tear, deterioration; which are explicitly excluded from coverage under the policy. State Farm timely and promptly issued a coverage determination letter to the Insureds on August 26, 2024. Thereafter, the claim was closed without payment. Therefore, this reason is false, is conclusory, is without merit, and is denied. Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), Florida Statutes: State Farm denies violation of section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f). There are no facts to support that State Farm failed to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing of the basis of the denial to the Insured. As previously stated, State Farm performed a prompt and thorough investigation before issuing its coverage decision in accordance with the results of the inspection and the policy terms, conditions, and limitations. State Farm determined that the damages observed to the roof and exterior of the property, were not the result of an accidental direct physical loss. State Farm determined that the damages to the property was the result of other conditions; including but not limited to wear, tear, deterioration; which are explicitly excluded from coverage under the policy. State Farm timely and promptly issued a coverage determination letter to the Insureds on August 26, 2024. Thereafter, the claim was closed without payment. Therefore, this reason is false, is conclusory, is without merit, and is denied. Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i), Florida Statutes: State Farm denies violation of section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i), as it relates to personal injury protection which has nothing to do with the subject property damage insurance claim. As indicated above, the notice filed by the Complainant includes statutory provision regardless of whether they are relevant or applicable to the alleged facts contained in the CRN. In fact, based upon the facts and circumstances of this matter, it is clear the cited statutory provisions cannot possibly be applicable. For instance, the Complainant allege violation of statutory provisions 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f). However, the Claimant fails to set forth in the "facts and circumstances" section of the CRN what specific and particular standards of investigation of claims State Farm has failed to adopt or implement; what misrepresentations of fact or policy provisions were made by State Farm; and how State Farm failed to provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the Insured on 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. It is because the CRN clearly contains statutory provisions that are inapplicable to this matter, State Farm is unable to properly respond and the CRN should be rejected. Finally, in the section in which the Civil Remedy Notice is supposed to allege a cure to the alleged violations, the proposed cure is illusory in that it consists of a demand for an amount of money without providing first, any basis in the policy as to coverage and second, any basis for the amount of damages. The purpose of a Civil Remedy Notice is to provide a carrier with one last opportunity to “cure” the alleged violations. In this instance, the Complainant alleges State Farm needs to: Immediately tender payment in the amount of $ $58,461.00 less any applicable deductible and prior payment to the Insured to complete the repairs for the Insured property. The Civil Remedy Notice fails to describe a specific or identify how that amount was determined. It also fails to specify the amount sought for fees, costs, and interest. The Civil Remedy Notice also contains “cures” that are not available under the policy of insurance, Florida law, or under the Civil Remedy Statute. Courts strictly construe the notice requirements because "the CRN is designed to prevent insurers from playing a guessing game as to what, and how, to cure within the sixty-day window." King v. Gov't Employees Ins. Co., No. 8:10-CV- 977-T-30AEP, 2012 WL 4052271, (M.D. Fla. Sept.13, 2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Aide from bear assertions the CRN does not identify the “unfair trade practices” nor provide a reasonable explanation in writing in support of the allegations raised against State Farm. Because the CRN fails to identify the specific facts, in support of and applicable to the listed statutes that were allegedly violated with respect to the subject claim, State Farm is unable to properly respond and said Civil Remedy Notice should be rejected and returned. The purpose of a Civil Remedy Notice is to provide a carrier with one last opportunity to “cure” the alleged violations. However, the method “for curing the violations alleged in a civil remedy notice are not determined by the Complainant. In Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 753 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 2000), the Florida Supreme Court accepted and quoted the reasoning of the court below in its opinion which stated in relevant part, as follows: 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. The law does not support such an expansive and illogical reading of Fla. Stat. Ann. §624.155(2)(d). . . . [t]o cure an alleged violation and to avoid a civil action, an insurer must pay the claim . . . before the sixty days expire. Talat, 753 So2d at 1282 citing Talat Enterprises Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 952 F.Supp. 773, 777-778 (M.D. Fla. 1996). The law does not support such an expansive and illogical reading of Fla. Stat. Ann. §624.155(2)(d). Talat, 753 So2d at 1282 citing Talat Enterprises Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 952 F.Supp. 773, 777-778 (M.D. Fla. 1996). Because [the] statute creating cause of action against first-party insurer for bad-faith failure to settle is in derogation of the common law, courts strictly construe the statutory requirements…the plain language of section 624.155(3)(b) instructs the policyholder to “state with specificity” information in the notice; to specify “language of the statute, which the authorized insurer allegedly violated;” and to “[r]eference ... specific policy language that is relevant to the violation, if any.” Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). For the aforementioned reasons, the Civil Remedy Notice is insufficient as a matter of law. It is important to note, that while an insurance company is required to settle claims that should be settled, it is not required to settle claims that are legitimately contested. Florida law continually affirms the principle that an insurer has the right to investigate claims presented for payment. An insurance company is expressly afforded an opportunity to evaluate its rights and liabilities. Neither the subject policy nor Florida law provide that a carrier must accept whatever demand for repairs it is provided by its Insureds as the amount necessary to repair a loss. In closing, State Farm first believes that the Civil Remedy Notice does not comply with F.S. § 624.155, and regardless of the lack of the compliance, State Farm denies all allegations contained in the Civil Remedy Notice and submits there are no violations. While this response is meant to be comprehensive, State Farm’s response above is based upon the limited information provided in the Civil Remedy Notice and the information we have to date. If the Complainant feels that we are not in possession of all the facts, please inform us immediately. Please note that State Farm’s response is not necessarily exhaustive and does not preclude us from asserting any other valid reason for seeking rejection and return of the Civil Remedy Notice. Also, this letter or any act or failure to act on the part of State Farm or any agent or representative of State Farm should not be construed as a waiver of any rights or defenses, including by not limited to proper notice and service by the Complainant available to it by contract or at law as all such rights and defenses are hereby specifically reserved. Therefore, the Department of Financial Services should have rejected and returned the CRN based upon these deficiencies. State Farm’s response to CRN No. 805264, does not in any way waive any argument of prejudice created by the defects in Complainant’s CRN. Based on the foregoing, the CRN should be invalidated due to its failure to comply with Florida Statute § 624.155 and Florida case law. Regardless, State Farm asserts it violated no Statutes nor the policy and it acted at all times in good faith. Please note that this response is not necessarily exhaustive and does not preclude us from asserting any other valid reason for seeking rejection of the Civil Remedy Notice. Also, this letter or any act or failure to act on the part of State Farm or any agent or representative of State Farm should not be construed as a waiver of any rights or defenses available to it by contract or at law as all such rights and defenses are hereby specifically reserved. We trust that this response addresses the allegations of insurer violation alleged in the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation. Should you have any questions regarding this matter or need anything further, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
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