Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     805702
Filing Accepted:  2/7/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
JOHNSON   First Name   JOHNNY
Street Address * 1297 PAR VIEW DRIVE
City, State Zip * SANIBEL, FL 33957
Email Address * JJOHNSON1635@GMAIL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   JOHNSON   First Name   JOHNNY
Policy # * SFLW0477304-05 Claim #* 54026
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* KRAPF First Name * GRANT Initial W
Street Address* 2790 SUNSET POINT RD
City, State Zip* CLEARWATER , FL 33759
Email Address * GRANT@KRAPFLEGAL.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   SAFEPOINT INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 15341
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* ERIK PEREZ AND ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL FROM, OR AGENT OF, SAFEPOINT INSURANCE COMPANY WHO WAS INVOLVED IN THE CLAIM.
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Unfair Trade Practice
Other : Not treating the Insured with good faith claims conduct
Other : Looking for ways to deny full recovery to the Insured
Other : Failing to properly investigate the Insured's loss
Other : Not training, supervising, or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made,
Other : Not adjusting claims and evaluating loss properly
Other : Failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims
* 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)(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.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Reference to specific policy language: The violations alleged are statutorily based and do not rely on any specific policy language.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

SAFEPOINT INSURANCE COMPANY (the "Insurer") has committed the following in handling the Insured's claim: 1) failure to act in due diligence and good faith to resolve claims; 2) placing the financial interest of Insurer before that of the policyholder and Insured; 3) looking for ways to deny benefit payments and otherwise "low ball" or "stone wall" claims; 4) not adjusting the claims promptly and fairly; 5) not attempting in good faith to settle claims; 6) conducting inadequate investigations; and 7) failing to employ policies and procedures to conduct adequate investigations. On or about September 28, 2022, while the subject policy was in full force and effect, the insured property suffered a loss caused by Hurricane Ian. The areas impacted are believed to be the dwelling mailbox, roof system and master bathroom. The Insured timely submitted a claim to the Insurer on October 20, 2022. Thereafter, the Insurer assigned claim number 54026 to the loss and sent a field adjuster to inspect the property. Then in a letter dated, January 17, 2023, the Insurer notified the Insured that it was extending coverage for the loss; however, the Insurer wrongfully determined that the covered damages fell below the Hurricane Deductible of $29,650.00. The Insurer's lowball estimate is that of a classic under scope and under value of the claim. Given the nature and scope of the damage resulting from Hurricane Ian, the Insured retained a public adjuster. After assessing the damage and the true scope of repairs, the public adjuster produced an estimate identifying $110,443.32 in covered damages. Upon receiving notice of the loss, the Insurer had the duty to provide the full benefits under the policy. This includes providing the Insured with a proper investigation and the funds necessary to return the home to its pre-loss condition. However, when the Insurer conducted its inspection of the insured property, the Insurer's adjuster failed to conduct a thorough and adequate investigation, or the adjuster intentionally ignored the damage observed and failed to make truthful and unbiased reports of the facts after investigating. As a result, the Insurer breached the policy by failing to fully indemnify the Insured for the covered loss. The Insurer failed to allocate and pay for overhead and profit, pursuant to Florida Statute 627.7011(3)(a). Where the Insureds are reasonably likely to need a general contractor for the repairs, Florida Statute 626.7011(3) does not permit an Insurer to withhold overhead and profit pending the actual repair, unless absent a showing by the Insureds that it was likely to need a general contractor for the repairs. Trinidad v. Fla. Peninsula ins. Co., 121 So. 3d 433, 435 (Fla. 2013). The Insurer has implemented policies and procedures that are designed to wrongfully withhold costs associated with restoring the insured property to its pre-loss condition. This is an underhanded attempt to place the financial interest of the Insurer over that of the Insured. Additionally, Insurer shifted the burden and cost of investigating and insuring the loss onto the Insured. The Insurer upon the Insured's loss had the duty to provide the full benefits under the policy. These benefits include providing the Insured with a proper investigation of the loss in addition to the funds necessary to return the property to its pre-loss condition. However, during the course of its investigation, the insurer's adjuster did not use a moisture meter, despite the presence of interior water damage. A moisture meter can be purchased online from Amazon for around $40 before tax. The Insurer could purchase a moisture meter and assess thousands of properties with one meter. Instead, the Insurer would rather place its financial interests over those of the Insured by failing to provide the adjuster with the necessary tools to correctly inspect the loss. As a result of the inadequate investigation and surrounding circumstances it is apparent that the Insurer significantly underestimated the scope of the loss to the Insured's property. The Insurer and its adjuster have colluded to misrepresent the true scope of damages to the insured property and the true replacement costs of the damages. Further, the Insurer has failed to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims within 30 days of the Insured providing a sworn proof of loss statement. Specifically, on July 26, 2023, Insured's legal counsel sent the Insurer a sworn statement in proof of loss and an estimate in support thereof. To date, Insured has not received a response from the Insurer as required by Florida Statute 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e). The Insurer's actions and inactions continue to frustrate and delay the resolution of Insured's claim. The foregoing wrongdoings of the insurance carrier are done in the routine course of its business. There may be further wrongful conduct which has not been made known to the Insured at this moment. Certain conduct or actions may be discovered throughout discovery or cannot be verified without a review of the Insurer's claim file and standards and procedures for the adjustment and investigation of claims. In short, the Insurer is not acting with due regard for the Insured's interests or safety. In Florida the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. The Insurer has breached this trust and its duty to the Insured. The Insurer and its agents conducted cursory and inadequate investigations and wrongfully determined that the covered damages fell below the Hurricane Deductible of $29,650.00. Moreover, the Insurer has engaged in bad faith practices designed to delay claims and prevent the Insured from recovering what is rightfully owed under the subject policy of insurance. The Insurer's actions and inactions have continued to frustrate and delay the resolution of the Insured claim. The Insurer's actions amount to but are not limited to the following: 1. Not treating the Insured with good faith claims conduct 2. Looking for way to reduce recovery to the Insured 3. Looking for ways to deny recovery to the Insured 4. Not adjusting claims and evaluating loss properly, promptly and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to the Insured 5. Not training, supervising or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made, but rather placing the company's interests before the Insured's' interests 6. Conducting inadequate investigations Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this civil remedy notice, the Insurer must: (1). Admit full coverage for the Insured's loss. (2). Tender full benefits owed to the Insured under the insurance contract. A copy of this form submitted to the FDFS has been sent via e-mail to the following parties providing them notice of the filing of the civil remedy notice. Please e-mail any response to this civil remedy notice to badfaith@krapflegal.com. Via E-mail: SAFEPOINT INSURANCE COMPANY P. O. Box 291579 Tampa, FL 33687 claims@safepointins.com
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
mbakas@safepointins.com 04-07-2025 April 7, 2025 VIA EMAIL: GRANT@KRAPFLEGAL.COM Grant W. Krapf, Esq. 2790 Sunset Point Road Clearwater, FL 33759 RE: Insured: Johnny Johnson Claim Number: 54026 Policy: SFLW0477304-05 Date of Loss: 9/28/22 CRN Filing Number: 805702 Dear Sir/Madam: This is the formal response of SafePoint Insurance Company (“SafePoint”) to the purported Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (“Purported Notice”) that was filed by attorney, Grant Krapf on behalf of Johnny Johnson (“Complainant”). The Florida Department of Financial Services accepted the Purported Notice, in form only, on February 7, 2025. As a preliminary matter, on August 28, 2023, Krapf Legal, filed a Notice of Intent to Litigate (“NOITL”) on behalf of the Complainant and attached an estimate and demand in the amount of $115,443.00. In response to the NOITL, on September 11, 2023, SafePoint advised it was invoking appraisal. The binding appraisal was completed and on December 15, 2023, prior to the filing of this Purported Notice and an award payment of $76,347.62 was issued to the Complainant. This payment, in full satisfaction of the award and the terms and conditions of the Policy, accounts for $106,221.88 (before deducting recoverable depreciation of $224.26 and the hurricane deductible of $29,650.00). As such, the Purported Notice is entirely moot as the outcome of the binding Appraisal was satisfied. Further, SafePoint notes that attorney, Grant Krapf previously filed Purported Notice No. 804956 on February 4, 2025, Purported Notice No. 761940 on May 28, 2024, Purported Notice No. 718609 on September 20, 2023, and Purported Notice No. 705288 on July 14, 2023, for the same referenced Claim Number 54026, containing nearly identical allegations. SafePoint diligently responded to all the prior Notices, clearly outlining their numerous legal deficiencies. Despite this, the current Purported Notice fails to rectify these issues, demonstrating a disregard for proper procedure. Consequently, all the Purported Notices remain legally deficient. Such repetitive and unfounded filings not only undermine the process but also reflect a lack of due diligence and professional conduct on the part of the filing attorney. Nonetheless, the Purported Notice was filed in connection with Insureds’ insurance claim for property damage. The Purported Notice names SafePoint and alleges “Unfair Trade Practice,” “Not treating the insured with good faith claims conduct,” “Looking for ways to deny full recovery to the insured,” “Failing to properly investigate the insured’s loss,” “Not training, supervising, or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made,” “Not adjusting claims and evaluating loss properly,” and “Failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims” supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e), Florida Statutes. The Purported Notice is a legal nullity for the reasons discussed below. ^ ^1 SafePoint reserves all (and waives none) of its rights or defenses, including its right to assert additional deficiencies in the Purported Notice. Under Section 624.155(3), Florida Statutes, a claimant must file a notice with the Florida Department of Financial Services (“the Department”) at least 60 days before filing a Statutory “bad faith” lawsuit. This notice is commonly referred to as a “civil remedy notice” (“CRN”). Section 624.155(3), Florida Statutes sets out five pieces of information which must be included in a CRN: 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; and 5. A statement that the notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section. The statute also provides that, in addition to these five requirements, the CRN shall be “on a form provided by the [Department] and shall state with specificity . . . such other information as the department may require.” (emphasis added); The Florida Supreme Court has held that Section 624.155, Florida Statutes “must be strictly construed.” Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1283 (Fla. 2000). Strict construction is appropriate as “this statute is in derogation of the common law.” Id. When interpreting a statute in derogation of the common law, “[a] court will presume that such a statute was not intended to alter the common law other than as clearly and plainly specified in the statute.” Time Ins. Co., Inc. v. Burger, 712 So. 2d 389, 393 (Fla. 1998). Accordingly, such an interpretation would mean that statutory bad faith cases cannot proceed unless the claimant has specifically complied will all statutory requirements. After the promulgation of this statute, the Department created a CRN form: Form DFS-10-363. Form DFS-10-363 lays out 15 requirements: 1. Complainants Name; 2. Complainants Address; 3. Complainants E-mail address; 4. Complainant type (Insured or otherwise); 5. Insured’s Name; 6. Insurance Policy Number; 7. Insurance Claim Number; 8. Attorney’s Name; 9. Attorney’s Address; 10. Attorney’s E-mail Address; 11. Type of Insurer (authorized or otherwise); 12. Name of Insurer; 13. Address of Insurer; 14. Type of Insurance (Commercial Property & Casualty or otherwise); and 15. Reason for Notice. As these requirements are all information required by the Department, according to Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, they each must be stated with specificity. The Purported Notice fails to meet the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 624.155 on the following grounds: Deficiency #1 The Purported Notice lists the Insured as “Johnny Johnson” and fails to list the additional insured on the property, “Johnny W Johnson Trust”. Thus, the Purported Notice is invalid for noncompliance with Section 624.155(3)(b)(3), Florida Statutes. This deficiency applies to all allegations in the Purported Notice. Deficiency #2 Section 624.155(3)(b)(3), Florida Statutes, requires that the CRN state with specificity the name of any individual involved in the violation. The Purported Notice fails to satisfy the requirement to identify the person or persons representing the insurer most responsible for or knowledgeable of the facts giving rise to the allegations. In order to comply with the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 624.155, the Complainant must name the individual(s) involved with specificity as it relates to the purported violation to allow SafePoint to properly investigate the allegations. Here, the Complainant does not identify the person or persons at SafePoint with the most knowledge of the facts regarding any alleged violation(s), rather it states: “ERIK PEREZ, AND ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL FROM, OR AGENT OF, SAFEPORT INSURANCE COMPANY, WHO WAS INVOLVED IN THE CLAIM.” The Purported Notice does not have the requisite specificity as to whom the Complainant is asserting has knowledge as to each specific allegation contained in the Purported Notice. Accordingly, Complainants’ Purported Notice is insufficient as a matter of law. Thus, the CRN is invalid for noncompliance with Section 624.155(3)(b)(3), Florida Statutes. Deficiency #3 Section 624.155(3)(b)(4), Florida Statutes, requires the CRN to reference 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. Complainant is the Insured and not a third-party claimant; therefore, the Purported Notice must include specific language from the subject Policy that is relevant to the alleged violations which it does not. The Purported Notice states, “…The violations alleged are statutorily based and do not rely on any specific policy language.” However, the Purported Notice alleges numerous Policy violations throughout the Purported Notice, including but not limited to, “… what is rightfully owed under the subject policy of insurance.” Thus, as the actual specific Policy provisions are not properly identified the Purported Notice is invalid for noncompliance with Section 624.155(3)(b)(4), Florida Statutes. This deficiency applies to all allegations in the Purported Notice, including but not limited to Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e), Florida Statutes. On March 3, 2021, the Fourth District Court of Appeal issued a relevant opinion in Junior Julien v. United Property and Casualty Insurance Company, No. 4D19-2763. In Julien, the insured appealed the circuit court’s dismissal of his lawsuit against his insurer, finding that the insured’s Civil Remedy Notice (“CRN”) failed to satisfy the statutory requirement that an insured “state with specificity” the policy language and the statutory provisions at issue. In his CRN, the insured cited numerous statutory provisions and listed nearly every provision in the insurance policy. On appeal, the Fourth District affirmed the dismissal and agreed with the circuit court that the CRN failed to specify the statutory and policy provisions at issue. Like the CRN in Julien, the Purported Notice fails to “state with specificity” the policy language at issue. Deficiency #4 Section 624.155(3), Florida Statutes sets out that the CRN must include facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation of statutory provisions. The Purported Notice does not supply facts or circumstances that explain the allegations. Rather, it includes false allegations, incorrect facts, and fails to explain how the purported facts constitute violations of Florida law. For example, the Notice alleges, “The Insurer’s actions and inactions have continued to frustrate and delay the resolution of the Insured claim” while at the same time admitting that this claim was handled diligently and without delay on the part of SafePoint. The claim was reported on October 20, 2022, making the 90-day statutory deadline to adjust the claim January 18, 2023. SafePoint issued its coverage decision on January 17, 2023, within the deadline. Following this initial determination, the Insured, through his public adjuster, submitted a supplemental estimate including a full roof replacement along with extensive interior work. SafePoint continued to adjust the claim and attempted in good faith to negotiate with the Insured and their representatives to reach a satisfactory resolution, unfortunately without success. As of the date of this response and as noted above, SafePoint already responded to four previously filed Purported Notices, a NOITL and participated in binding appraisal. On December 15, 2023, an award payment was issued to Complainant in full satisfaction of the awarded amount and the terms and conditions of the Policy. As such, the Purported Notice is entirely moot as the outcome of the binding Appraisal was satisfied. Thus, the Purported Notice is invalid for noncompliance with Section 624.155(3)(b)(2), Florida Statutes. This deficiency applies to all allegations in the Purported Notice, including but not limited to Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e), Florida Statutes. Deficiency # 5 The Purported Notice does not supply necessary information that would allow SafePoint to “cure” the alleged violations, as required by Florida law. In Talat Enter., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1283 (Fla. 2000), the Florida Supreme Court stated that alleged statutory violations may be “cured,” in the context of a first-party insurance claim, by payment of “the contractual amount due the insured” within the 60 days following the acceptance of a valid notice. The Purported Notice makes a series of vague, immeasurable demands, but does not tell SafePoint what amount your clients would accept as a “cure.” This deficiency applies to all allegations in the Purported Notice, including but not limited to Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e), Florida Statutes. STATUTORY ALLEGATIONS 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. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 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. SafePoint denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. The allegations set forth in the Purported Notice are denied as they are mere conclusory allegations unsupported by facts, devoid of logic and intended solely to tarnish SafePoint’s name and reputation. SafePoint has at all times, acted fairly, honestly and in good faith in its dealings with the Complainant. SafePoint did not fail to promptly settle the claim or attempt to settle the claim in order to influence settlement under a different portion of the policy. SafePoint conducted a reasonable and prudent investigation of the claim and acted upon all communications from the Complainant. Finally, SafePoint promptly and appropriately communicated with the Complainant and provided explanations for the actions and decisions that were made. SafePoint retained a field adjuster and conducted an inspection of the subject property to investigate the Complainant’s claim. Thereafter, Safepoint made a coverage decision and determined the loss did not exceed the Insured’s almost $30,000.00 deductible. SafePoint then continued to adjust the claim and participated in binding appraisal and issued payment in full satisfaction to Complainant pursuant to the award. Notwithstanding the deficiencies in, and the invalidity of, the Purported Notice, SafePoint denies any wrongdoing. It specifically denies that it committed the acts asserted, or violated Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Purported Notice. Please be advised, by this letter, SafePoint neither waives, nor is estopped, from asserting any and all rights it may have in law, or, under the terms of the policy. In fact, SafePoint hereby again, expressly, and specifically, reserves all of its rights, without exception or limitation. If you have any questions or concerns with this response, or, regarding any other matter, please contact me in writing. Sincerely, /s/ Ari Zeltzer Ari A. Zeltzer, Esq. Staff Counsel SafePoint Insurance Cc: Florida Department of Financial Services
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