Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     805739
Filing Accepted:  2/7/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
CONWAY   First Name   ALETA
Street Address * 5100 RICHMOND TERRACE
City, State Zip * NORTH PORT, FL 34287
Email Address * AMCONWAY61@AOL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   CONWAY   First Name   ALETA
Policy # * P000071904 Claim #* 239712
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*   SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10117
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* KRISTEENA SANDERS, GEORGE FELLOWS AND ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL FROM, OR AGENT OF, SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY WHO WAS INVOLVED IN THE CLAIM.
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
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 : Looking for ways to delay full recovery to the Insured
Other : Failing to properly investigate the Insured's loss
Other : Failing to provide the Insured with the full benefits awarded under the contract of insurance in a t
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 : Shifting the burden of insuring the loss to the Insured
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.
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)(1) Attempting to settle claims on the basis of an application, when serving as a binder or intended to become a part of the policy, or any other material document which was altered without notice to, or knowledge or consent of, the insured.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
* 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.

Security First Insurance Company (the "Insurer") has committed the following in handling the Insured's claim: 1) failing to act in due diligence and good faith to resolve claims; 2) placing the financial interest of Insurer before that of the 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; 7) failing to employ policies and procedures to conduct adequate investigations; and 8) shifting the burden of investigating the loss onto the Insureds. 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 include but are not limited to the roofing system, garage, living room, foyer, dining room, master bedroom, master bedroom closet, master bathroom, linen closet, family room, hallways, hall closets, kitchen, bedrooms, bedroom closets. The Insured timely submitted a claim to the Insurer for damages caused by Hurricane Ian and the ensuing damage therefrom. Thereafter, the Insurer assigned claim number 239712 to the loss and sent a field adjuster to inspect the property on October 26, 2022. Subsequently, in a coverage determination letter dated December 29, 2022, the Insurer notified the Insured that it was extending coverage for the loss. However, the Insurer wrongfully determined that it would only require $1,748.89 to restore the insured property to its pre-loss condition, resulting in no payment being issued to the Insured as the amount of covered damage allegedly fell below the policy deductible. The Insurer's lowball estimate is that of a classic under scope and under value of the claim. Given the vastly underestimated cost of repairs and the scope and nature of the damage, the Insured retained mitigation services and a public adjuster. After assessing the damage and the true scope of repairs, the public adjuster prepared an estimate identifying $53,803.54 in covered damage to the dwelling. The foregoing estimate, photographs, reports, and a letter of representation from the public adjuster were sent to the Insurer who subsequently, in a letter dated October 5, 2023, notified the Insured that it was rejecting their sworn statement in proof of loss and maintaining its coverage determination. 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. Additionally, Insurer shifted the burden and cost of investigating and insuring the loss onto the Insured. During their 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. The Insurer also 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 by the Insurer to place its financial interest above those of the Insured. Despite the obvious damage, the Insurer did not feel it was necessary to inspect the Insured's home for mold. A mold inspection test can be purchased online from Amazon for around $46 before tax. This mold test only takes five minutes to assess whether or not the property has mold-particulates. However, the Insurer would much rather risk the health of the Insured in order to save some time and a money. In short, when it comes to mold, the Insurer accepts premiums but does not accept the responsibility of inspecting for mold. This is further evidence that the Insurer is placing its financial interest over the health and safety of the Insured. The conduct outlined above is done within the Insurer's routine course of the 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 it would only require $1,748.89 to restore the insured property to its pre-loss condition. 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. Claim delay 2. Not treating the Insured with good faith claims conduct 3. Looking for way to reduce recovery to the Insured 4. Looking for ways to deny recovery to the Insured 5. Not adjusting claims and evaluating loss properly, promptly and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to the Insured 6. 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 7. Placing the financial interest of the Insurer over that of the health and safety of the Insured 8. Shifting the burden of investigating onto the Insured 9. 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: Attorney for Security First Insurance Company Matthew A. Morrow, Esquire Matthew.morrow@securityfirstflorida.com
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
grant@krapflegal.com 05-28-2025 The details herein have been amicably resolved between the parties; therefore, we withdraw this Civil Remedy Notice. This Civil Remedy Notice is hereby withdrawn.
matthew.morrow@securityfirstflorida.com 02-17-2025 February 17, 2025 Via Electronic Filing: Florida Department of Financial Services Bureau of Consumer Assistance c/o Civil Remedy Section Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0322 Via Email: Aleta Conway c/o Grant Krapf, Esquire 2790 Sunset Point Road Clearwater, Florida 33759 grant@krapflegal.com Re: CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE OF INSURER VIOLATION Filing No.: 805739 Insured: Aleta Conway Insurer: Security First Insurance Company Claim No.: 239712 Policy No.: P000071904 Date of Loss: September 27, 2022 Dear Sir or Madam: This correspondence is in response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (hereinafter referred to as the “CRN”) was filed by Grant Krapf, Esquire, on behalf of his client, Aleta Conway (hereinafter referred to as “Insured”). Please be advised that the undersigned attorney has been retained to represent the interests of Security First Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as “Security First” or “SFIC”) with respect to the above-referenced matter. The Florida Department of Financial Services (hereinafter referred to as “Department”) assigned this CRN an acceptance date of February 7, 2025, and DFS File No.: 805739. This matter concerns a property damage claim made by the Insured pursuant to a homeowners’ insurance policy provided by Security First Policy No. P000071904 and assigned Claim No. 239712. As the basis for filing the CRN against Security First, Aleta Conway, asserts in the “Reasons for Notice” section violations such as: 1) Claim Delay, 2) Unfair Trade Practice, 3) Not treating the Insured with good faith claims conduct, 4) Looking for ways to deny full recovery to the Insured, 5) Looking for ways to delay full recovery to the Insured, 6) Failing to properly investigate the Insured's loss, 7) Failing to provide the Insured with the full benefits awarded under the contract of insurance in a, 8) Not training, supervising, or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made, 9) Not adjusting claims and evaluating loss properly, 10) Shifting the burden of insuring the loss to the Insured, 11) Failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims, along with the following statutory violations: 624.155(1)(b)(1); 624.155(1)(b)(3); 626.9541(1)(i)(1); and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a). Security First welcomes this opportunity to respond to the CRN and denies each allegation contained therein. The allegations made in the CRN are premature, as the Insured failed to perfect the claim for bad faith and the CRN does not meet the specificity requirement of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. This CRN does not sufficiently support the allegations stated above. As is standard procedure, upon the first notice of the claim, the subject property was dutifully inspected by an adjuster, which was documented through photographs, and a timely coverage decision was rendered. I. Perfecting a Claim for Bad Faith SFIC specifically denies all allegations set forth in the Notice. SFIC contends that the Notice should be rejected and returned by the Department of Financial Services as it is premature. Pursuant to statute, there is no potential violation until a breach of contract is established. § 624.1551, Florida Statutes. Accordingly, any Notice filed prior to a finding that SFIC has breached the terms of the policy, is not ripe and is premature and thus fails to perfect Aleta Conway’s rights to pursue civil remedies under Florida Statutes. II. Specificity Requirement The Insured’s CRN violates multiple requirements set forth in the Florida Courts’ Jurisprudence for Civil Remedy Notices. In addition, it fails to meet even the most basic requirements of the Statute. Pursuant to the terms of the statute, (3)(a) As a condition precedent to bringing an action under this section, the department and the authorized insurer must have been given 60 days’ written notice of the violations. Notice to the authorized insurer must be provided by the department to the e-mail address designated by the insurer under s. 624.422. a. The notice shall be on a form provided by the department and shall state with specificity the following information, and such other information as the department may require (emphasis added): b. As a condition precedent to bringing an action under this section, the department and the authorized insurer must have been given 60 days’ written notice of the violations. Notice to the authorized insurer must be provided by the department to the e-mail address designated by the insurer under s. 624.422. i. The statutory provision, including the specific language of the statute, which the authorized insurer allegedly violated. ii. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation. iii. The name of any individual involved in the violation. iv. 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. v. A statement that the notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section. In interpreting this statute, courts have emphasized the importance of filing specific civil remedy notices. The civil remedy notice is “crucial to the procedural integrity of an action” under the Statute. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Clohessy, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1328, 1333 (M.D. Fla. 1998). “It is, without a doubt, a condition that must be satisfied in order for one to perfect the right to sue under the statute.” Id. “In creating this statutory remedy for bad- faith actions, the Legislature provided this sixty-day window as a last opportunity for insurers to comply with their claim-handling obligations when a good-faith decision by the insurer would indicate that contractual benefits are owed.” Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 2000). Thus, the Notice cannot be “vague and ‘shotgun’ in nature,” rather than “the type of specific notice required by the statute that would allow [the insurer] an opportunity to cure.” Heritage Corp. of South Florida v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 580 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1299 (S.D. Fla. 2008). Because it is in derogation of the common law, Section 624.155(1)(b), Florida Statutes must be strictly construed. Talat, 753 So. 2d at 1283 (citing Baxter v. Royal Indem. Co., 285 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). To perfect the right to sue under the statute, the insured must specifically notify the insured of any and all alleged violations claimed. Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 952 F. Supp. 773, 776 (M.D. Fla. 1996) (“Talat I”) See Fox v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., No. 8:16-CV-3254-T-23MAP, 2017 WL 1541294, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2017) (sufficiency means specificity). In Junior Julien v. United Property and Casualty Insurance Company, 311 So. 3d 875, 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021), the Honorable Court stated: The Middle District of Florida was confronted with a civil remedy notice that was similarly broad in scope and concluded that listing nearly all policy provisions on the notice did not satisfy the statute. Fox v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., No. 8:16-CV-3254-T-23MAP, 2017 WL 1541294, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2017). The court explained that “[i]f the statute contained no specificity requirement, [then] the [insureds’] casual ‘reference’ to the entire insurance policy undoubtedly would suffice.” Id. But, the court continued, “the Legislature included ‘specific’ or a variant not once but twice in the statute.” Id. As a result, the insureds’ listing of whole sections of the insurance policy “appear[ed] to lack specificity.” Id. In Valenti, the District Court for the Middle District of Florida considered the practical consequences of an insured’s non-specific civil remedy notice. Valenti v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America, 2006 WL 1627276 (M.D. Fla. 2006). The Plaintiff’s civil remedy notice included allegations that the defendant conducted an inadequate investigation. The Plaintiff, however, failed to identify with the requisite specificity the defendant’s actions that were inadequate. The Middle District held that the Plaintiff’s civil remedy notice was insufficient, and stated the following: [T]he civil remedy notice must be specific enough to provide insurers notice of the wrongdoing so the insurer can cure the same within sixty days . . . . Plaintiffs’ counsel, during the hearing in this matter, argued a civil remedy notice that states “you denied my claim” should be sufficient to place the insurer on notice of what was needed to be cured. Plaintiffs’ counsel further argued that it was up to the insurer, as the insurance expert, to decipher what actions needed to be cured. This argument, in this Court's estimation, is illogical and is counter to the purpose of the civil remedy notice. If a simple “you denied my claim” was sufficient to put insurers on notice, the sixty-day cure period would be little more than a guessing game with the insurer attempting to correctly guess what errors the insured claimed it made in the claims handling process, or risk defending a bad faith action. This surely is not what the legislature had in mind when it created the civil remedy notice. Accordingly, this Court finds that Plaintiffs allegation that Defendant failed to conduct an adequate investigation is insufficient to provide Defendant an opportunity to cure. Id. at *2. The guidance for an insured could not be clearer, “[t]he purpose of the civil remedy notice is to give the insurer one last chance to settle a claim with its insured and avoid unnecessary bad faith litigation.” Lane v. Westfield Insurance Co., 862 So. 2d 774, 779 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Its purpose is not “to give the insured a right of action to proceed against the insurer even after the insured’s claim has been paid or resolved.” Id. Ultimately, conclusory allegations without facts fail to perfect a statutory bad faith claim. Merely alleging the bare minimum allegations is insufficient pursuant to Florida courts’ interpretations of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. III. Applicability Here, the Insured alleges Security First has violated Florida Statute Sections: 624.155(1)(b)(1); 624.155(1)(b)(3); 626.9541(1)(i)(1); and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) yet does so in a conclusory manner. However, as previously mentioned, Security First has acted and continues to act in good faith. As such, Security First categorically denies the aforesaid allegations. SFIC investigated our customer’s claim in a timely manner and made a proper coverage decision on December 29, 2022. SFIC informed its customer that its investigation revealed that the value of the covered damage to the dwelling from a Peril Insured Against, fell below the applicable Hurricane deductible, as outlined in the Policy. As discussed above, SFIC acted in good faith and has attempted to resolve this claim. Accordingly, SFIC asserts that it properly investigated the alleged loss, issued a coverage determination in a timely manner, and issued all payments due and owing in accordance with the unambiguous terms, conditions, exclusions, and endorsements of the Policy. IV. Conclusion At all times, Security First has acted in good faith in its handling of the claim and it has acted fairly, honestly, and with due regard for the Insured’s interest and in determining obligations to Insured. Specifically, Security First has complied with its obligations under the applicable Florida Statutes and the applicable Security First Insurance policy. Security First specifically denies any claim for bad faith and argues that the Insured’s claim for bad faith is premature. Security First continues to reserve all its rights under the policy, at law and in equity. Regardless, the Insured’s conclusory allegations fail to place Security First on notice of any purported violations. Furthermore, the Civil Remedy Notice fails to identify how to cure the allegations set forth in the same. In sum, the allegations are without basis, as it is clear that Security First properly handled and adequately investigated the claim. We hope that this response has answered any concerns regarding this matter. If the Department has any question concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned counsel. Sincerely, Matthew Morrow, Esquire Matthew Morrow, Esquire Florida Bar No: 0121161 Attorney for the Defendant Security First Insurance Company 1001 Broadway Avenue Ormond Beach, Florida 32714 matthew.morrow@securityfirstflorida.com
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