Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     806233
Filing Accepted:  2/11/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
PALERMO   First Name   FRAN
Street Address * 8011 WEST ELM STREET
City, State Zip * TAMPA, FL 33615
Email Address * FRAN1127@VERIZON.NET
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   PALERMO   First Name   FRAN
Policy # * FPH5530193-00 Claim #* FPI248009
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* BAILIE First Name * JEREMY Initial D
Street Address* 5453 CENTRAL AVENUE
City, State Zip* ST. PETERSBURG , FL 33710
Email Address * JEREMY.BAILIE@WEBERCRABB.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   FLORIDA PENINSULA INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10132
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* ANDREW STAUFFER AND DEIDRE JOHNSON
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
* 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.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

COVERAGE A Dwelling We cover: 1. The dwelling on the "residence premises" shown in the Declarations, including structures attached to the dwelling; and * * * SECTION I PERILS INSURED AGAINST COVERAGE A DWELLING and COVERAGE B OTHER STRUCTURES 1. We insure for sudden and accidental direct loss to property described in Coverages A and B only if that loss is a physical loss to covered property.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

During the policy period, Fran Palermo ("Insured"), suffered a loss to her residential property (the "Insured Property"). The Insured Property suffered damage covered by a policy of insurance with Florida Peninsula Insurance Company ("Insurer"). The damage was caused by a covered peril under the policy. Per the terms of the policy, the Insured provided the Insurer with prompt notice of the loss. Moreover, the Insured was and continues to be cooperative with the Insurer's investigation of the Insured Property. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, the Insurer has grossly underestimated the damages, after having been provided with all the documentation and access to the property it required, and attempted to deny payment of all policy benefits owed for the claim without a sufficient investigation. In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. Insurer has breached the public's trust by its adjustment of the claim of loss. In this case, it has become apparent, Insurer has failed and/or refused to thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigate and evaluate the claim for damages. To date, notwithstanding the Insured's pleas otherwise, the Insurer has continued to refuse to acknowledge its obligation to conduct a proper investigation. Moreover, the Insurer has not attempted in good faith to settle the claim when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its Insureds and with due regard for their interests. Furthermore, Insurer is required to properly investigate and adjust claims and cannot place that burden upon the Insured. This was made clear by the Florida Supreme Court in Allstate Indemnity Co. v. Ruiz, 899 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 2005)("The Legislature has clearly chosen to impose on the insurance companies a duty to use good faith and fair dealing in processing and litigating the claims of their insureds."). The Insurer was immediately put on notice of the claim. The Insured has complied with all of the Insurer's requests to date and the Insurer has still failed to treat this claim with good-faith. It is clear that Insurer is not treating the Homeowner with good faith claims conduct; failing to pay a claim clearly owed; not adjusting the claim and evaluating the loss properly, promptly, and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to Homeowner; sending a low-ball offer and ignoring the Insured's pleas for assistance; failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims; placing the Insurer's interests before the Insured's interests; refusing to pay the full amount owed to the Insured despite the fact that the Insurer has been on notice of the damages; and looking for ways to delay full recovery to the Insured, when a reasonable carrier in a similar position would have tendered a full payment in accordance with both the policy language and statutory requirements. Insurer's actions are in violation of the sections of 624.155, Florida Statutes and sections 626.9541, Florida Statutes discussed above. All the aforementioned are part of what appears to be an ongoing pattern and practice of behavior of Insurer that it demonstrates a wanton and reckless regard for the Insured's rights and a pattern and practice of bad faith claims practices to its insureds across the state of Florida. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, within the next 60 days, the Insurer must tender a settlement draft in the total amount of $40,000.77 made payable to "Weber, Crabb & Wein, P.A. Trust Account" and deliver it to Claimant's counsel.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
shannon@zinoberdiana.com 04-10-2025 While Florida Peninsula welcomes the opportunity to respond to this CRN, Florida Peninsula specifically denies each and every allegation contained in the CRN filed in relation to this claim. Further, Florida Peninsula asserts that the CRN should be rejected and returned by DFS, as the CRN fails to comply with the specific information requirements as set forth within § 624.155, Florida Statutes, and Florida case law, and is therefore facially invalid and deficient. I. The CRN fails to satisfy the requirements of Florida law. Concerning the contents of the CRN, the law requires strict compliance with the specificity requirements in § 624.155, Florida Statutes, which the CRN fails to satisfy. Both § 624.155(3), Florida Statutes, and the Civil Remedy Notice form require the Complainant to specifically state, among other things, the statutory provisions, including the specific language of the statute, which the insurer allegedly violated, the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation, the name of any individual involved in the violation, and the specific policy language that is relevant to the violation. Additionally, § 624.155(3)(b) mandates that the Civil Remedy Notice must be “on a form provided by the [Department] and shall state with specificity … such other information as the department may require.” (emphasis added). Notably, in the section that requires the Complainant provide the Insured’s name, the Complainant identified the Insured as “Fran Palermo” whereas the Declaration Page of the Policy identifies the formal name of the Named Insured as “Francine Palermo”. Further, the purpose of the specificity requirement for a civil remedy notice is to put the insurer on notice of an alleged violation, the circumstances surrounding same, and indicate the details of the alleged violation in order to provide an insurer with 60 days to “cure” the alleged claim defects and otherwise avoid litigation. See Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1283-4 (Fla. 2000); Rousso v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82328 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 13, 2010). Uninformative recitations that do not inform the insurer of the facts underlying the alleged violations or match up with the statutes that the complainant identifies as the statutes that were purportedly violated are insufficient to fulfill the requirements of § 624.155. Rousso, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82328. The CRN fails to meet the specificity requirements of § 624.155, Florida Statutes, and therefore is invalid and deficient. Notably, in contravention of the statutory and form requirements that a complainant must state the specific statutory provisions allegedly violated and the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation, the CRN identifies certain statutory provisions, though they are not wholly relevant or applicable to the alleged facts or claimed violations contained in the CRN or fail to correlate with any specific facts or circumstances giving rise to the alleged violations. Likewise, the CRN identifies certain “reason[s] for notice” without providing sufficient facts to support each. Additionally, 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 purpose of which is to “enable the insurer to investigate and resolve [the] claim,” the CRN itself only provides unsupported, incomplete, generic, conclusory, and insufficient allegations with no basis in fact or circumstance, as well as omits specific facts to support its allegations of violations. The CRN includes a lengthy commentary on unsupported, conclusory accusations, unqualified opinion, legal conclusions, conjecture, and inaccurate statements of facts cast in the light most favorable to the Complainant and her representatives. In short, the facts alleged are simply inaccurate, fail to paint a complete picture of the handling of this claim, fail to apprise Florida Peninsula of how its actions constituted a violation of said statutes, or were identified without any factual support. II. Despite the deficiencies, Florida Peninsula denies all allegations contained in the CRN. Notwithstanding the deficiencies in the CRN and without waiving the objections above, Florida Peninsula explicitly denies any violation of the Florida Statutes section referenced in the CRN. Florida Peninsula hereby denies each and every allegation contained in the CRN, either explicitly or implicitly, and denies any wrongdoing in the handling of this matter. Rather, Florida Peninsula handled the claim both diligently and properly under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as well as in accord with Florida law. Florida Peninsula denies each and every allegation contained in the CRN and responds to them individually as follows: The Complainant lists certain purported reasons for submitting the CRN which are 1) Claim Delay and 2) Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer. As indicated in detail below, the CRN fails to establish or set forth any specific facts that would support the allegations asserted in support of the perceived violations and Florida Peninsula denies each and every allegation. Specifically, Florida Peninsula responds as follows: Allegation of Claim Delay: This allegation is without basis and therefore denied. Complainant should immediately withdraw this allegation from the CRN as it cannot be established by any credible evidence. At all times material to this claim, Florida Peninsula acted timely, diligently, and responsibly in its pursuit of coverage. At all times, Florida Peninsula has continuously acted promptly and timely with regards to all aspects of this claim. Notably, the claim was first reported on October 11, 2024 date of loss, and Florida Peninsula issued its coverage determination and corresponding payments on November 17, 2024 evidencing a total lack of any delay. Moreover, any perceived delays alleged in the CRN are not due to the actions of Florida Peninsula, nor did Florida Peninsula have control over any actions causing any perceived delays. Further, claim delay, in and of itself, is not a valid reason for filing a CRN. Allegation of Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer: This allegation is wholly without basis in law or in fact and is therefore denied. Complainant should immediately withdraw this allegation from the CRN as it cannot be established by any credible evidence. Florida Peninsula handled the claim both diligently and properly under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as well as in accord with Florida law, a determination of coverage was made based on a good faith investigation and the terms and conditions of the subject policy and corresponding payments issued, a good faith attempt to investigate this claim has and continues to be made, and at all times material to this claim, Florida Peninsula has and continues to act fairly and honestly towards the Insured and with due regard for the interests of the Insured, as it does on every claim. Moreover, “unsatisfactory” settlement offer, in and of itself, is not a valid reason for filing a CRN. Moreover, the subject CRN cites the following statute Florida Peninsula has allegedly violated. While Florida Peninsula categorically and unequivocally denies violating any statutes, Florida Peninsula will briefly address the specific statute alleged to have been violated, in an abundance of caution. § 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. Florida Peninsula denies this allegation. The CRN sets forth no actual facts to support this allegation, only opinions as to how the Complainant believes the claim should have been resolved. The CRN also sets forth several inaccuracies and incomplete information regarding the claim based solely on unsupported opinions. Florida Peninsula retained a qualified independent adjuster to inspect the insured property in the subject claim. Additionally, Florida Peninsula made a determination of coverage on this claim based on the totality of its good faith investigation and the terms and conditions of the subject policy and Florida law and issued a detailed explanation to the Insured regarding its coverage determination along with the corresponding payments, statement of loss, estimate, and applicable policy language for transparency purposes. While Florida Peninsula has and continues to make a good faith attempt to investigate this claim and has and continues to act fairly and honestly towards the Insured and with due regard for the interests of the Insured, Florida Peninsula is also not obligated to settle a claim in a matter beyond that which is covered under the terms, conditions and exclusions of the subject policy. The remainder of the CRN simply states disparaging and unsubstantiated opinions regarding Florida Peninsula and its agents assisting in the investigation of the subject claim. At no time has Florida Peninsula acted dishonestly or unfairly toward the Insured and/or her representatives. All actions have been performed in good faith for the purpose of moving the claim towards a just and equitable resolution. Florida Peninsula acted in accordance with Florida Statute § 624.155(1)(b)(1) and has in no way violated said statutory provisions. Alleged Violations of Policy of Insurance The CRN requires the Complainant to include the specific policy language that is relevant to the violation. The CRN only includes limited language from Coverage A – Dwelling and Section I Perils Insured Against. To the extent the Complainant subsequently intends to rely on specific additional policy provisions, she is precluded from doing so as she failed to properly include those provisions in the CRN. Notwithstanding, Florida Peninsula denies violating any provision or duty set forth in the policy. Alleged Factual and Circumstantial Support for the CRN A review of the facts and circumstances surrounding the investigation and claim decisions on the subject claim reveals Florida Peninsula acted in good faith and diligently investigated, handled, and adjusted the claim at issue in this dispute. Florida Peninsula acted fairly, honestly, and in good faith, acknowledged and acted promptly upon receipt of the claim, attempted in good faith to adjust the claim pursuant to the terms of the policy, took reasonable steps to investigate the claim, communicated reasonably and honestly with the Insured and the Insured’s representatives about the claim, and provided the Insured reasonable explanations for its actions. The subject claim involves alleged windstorm damage with a reported date of loss of October 11, 2024 (Hurricane Milton) to the property located at 8011 W Elm St, Tampa, FL 33615 (the “Property”). Florida Peninsula promptly responded with acknowledgement of the claim and the Homeowner Claims Bill of Rights and initiated its investigation of the claim, which included an inspection of the Property by a qualified independent adjuster. Florida Peninsula made a determination of coverage on this claim based on the totality of its diligent, reasonable, and good faith investigation and the terms and conditions of the subject policy and Florida law. Based on the investigation, Florida Peninsula issued its coverage determination letter on November 17, 2024 explaining that payments were being issued by Florida Peninsula in the amount of $10,565.26 for Coverage A and $3,400.00 for Matching of Undamaged Property for Coverage A, providing the statement of loss, the estimate, and applicable policy language for transparency purposes. In addition, Florida Peninsula issued the corresponding payments. In addition, on December 5, 2024, Florida Peninsula issued correspondence to the Insured advising that per the documents received and continued adjustment of the claim, Florida Peninsula was issuing payment in the amount of $41,052.54 to Eberl Claims Service LLC for Emergency Mitigation Services providing by Firstline Restoration. Thereafter, rather than submit additional information as requested by Florida Peninsula, the Complainant filed this CRN. As made clear, Florida Peninsula has continued to promptly and fairly adjust the claim as information is made available to it. Florida Peninsula promptly and honestly made all coverage determinations based on its reasonable investigation of the claim. Moreover, contrary to the Complainant’s claims, Florida Peninsula has and continues to promptly respond to all communications, communicate honestly with the Insured and her representatives, and conduct a fair and good faith ongoing investigation of the claim. There is no indication in the CRN nor anywhere within the record evidence to suggest that Florida Peninsula handled the subject claim in bad faith or incongruent with the applicable Florida Statutes. Rather, the record evidence establishes the opposite, and shows that Florida Peninsula properly handled and adjusted the subject claim and has continued to do so from the time it was first received through the present. Furthermore, under the circumstances, and upon information and belief, the filing of the CRN appears to be an effort to strong-arm Florida Peninsula into payment for repairs and excessive benefits for which the Complainant is not entitled under the policy. The disagreement with the claim decision does not in any way constitute bad faith on the part of Florida Peninsula. Under the circumstances presented, Florida Peninsula cannot in good faith issue a payment for damages that are claimed and demanded by the Complainant as doing so would, in essence, breach Florida Peninsula’s duty of good faith and fair dealing owed toward each and every one of its other policyholders. Accordingly, there is no evidence that Florida Peninsula has acted in any way, whatsoever, contrary to the terms of the policy or in violation of the statutes listed in the CRN. III. Demands to Cure Defects. Moreover, the CRN does not specify a cure for the alleged violations that comports with the provisions of the subject Policy. Further, the CRN requests “cures” that are improper according to Florida law and Fla. Stat. §624.155. See Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1281 (Fla. 2000). The Talat decision provides that a “cure” must be limited to contract damages. Additionally, Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, does not impose on an insurer the obligation to pay whatever its insured demands. Talat, 753 So. 2d at 1282. On the contrary, the Florida Supreme Court holds that the scope of what can be “cured” in responding to a Civil Remedy Notice, is limited to contractual amounts due to the insured. See Talat, 753 So. 2d at 1281. The subject Notice is deficient as it does not provide an opportunity to “cure” the alleged violations without imposing obligations on Florida Peninsula not owed or contemplated by the Policy. To the extent the CRN requests anything other than contract proceeds, the CRN is defective and should be rejected. The offer to cure in the CRN, rather, is illusory and even a reading of the CRN in a light most favorable to the Complainant requires that it be invalidated and rejected. Notably, the CRN requests that in order to cure the alleged violations, Florida Peninsula must issue payment in the amount of $40,000.77 without substantiating the basis of this amount. Based on its thorough investigation, the information received at this time, and the terms and conditions of the Policy, Florida Peninsula properly determined that the covered damage pursuant to the policy and issued payment for the same, and therefore no amounts are owed. IV. Conclusion. In closing, Florida Peninsula first believes that the CRN does not comply with section 624.155, Florida Statutes, and should therefore be rejected and returned by DFS due to its failure to comply with § 624.155, Florida Statutes, and Florida case law. Regardless of the rejection and lack of compliance, Florida Peninsula denies all allegations contained in the CRN and submits there are no violations. While this Response is meant to be comprehensive, Florida Peninsula’s Response above is based upon the limited information provided in the CRN 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 Florida Peninsula’s Response is not necessarily exhaustive and does not preclude us from asserting any other valid reason for the lack of compliance with Florida Statute § 624.155. Also, this letter or any act or failure to act on the part of Florida Peninsula or any agent or representative of Florida Peninsula 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 CRN filed on February 11, 2025.
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