Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     806389
Filing Accepted:  2/12/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
BIG SWIG LLC   First Name  
Street Address * 206 OAK AVENUE
City, State Zip * ANNA MARIA, FL 34216
Email Address * SERVICE@PROPERTYPEOPLELAW.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   BIG SWIG LLC   First Name  
Policy # * 2846792486 Claim #* 01000126472
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* ILANI First Name * DANIEL Initial
Street Address* 80 SW 8TH STREET, SUITE 2590
City, State Zip* MIAMI , FLORIDA 33130
Email Address * SERVICE@PROPERTYPEOPLELAW.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   FIRST PROTECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10897
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* ALL ADJUSTERS, SUPERVISORS, MANAGERS, ATTORNEYS, AND INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH AND/OR RETAINED BY FIRST PROTECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY CONCERNING THE CLAIM AT ISSUES; FIRST PROTECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY’S DESK ADJUSTER(S); FIRST PROTECTIVE INSURANCE C
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)(2) Making claims payments to insureds or beneficiaries not accompanied by a statement setting forth the coverage under which payments are being made.
624.155(1)(b)(3) Except as to liability coverages, failing to promptly settle claims, when the obligation to settle a claim has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage.
626.9541(1)(i)(2) A material misrepresentation made to an insured or any other person having an interest in the proceeds payable under such contract or policy, for the purpose and with the intent of effecting settlement of such claims, loss, or damage under such contract or policy on less favorable terms than those provided in, and contemplated by, such contract or policy.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e) Failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and, as to partial coverage, the dollar amount or extent of coverage, or failing to provide a written statement that the claim is being investigated, upon the written request of the insured within 30 days after proof-of-loss statements have been completed.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f) Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of the basis in the insurance policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g) Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h) Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary.
626.9541(1)(i)(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.

FIRST PROTECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY failed to adequately adjust and pay the claim covered under the subject insurance policy. Specifically, but not limited to, FIRST PROTECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY failed to properly apply the Loss Settlement and Loss Payment provisions of the policy. In addition to the policy sections specifically cited herein, any endorsements or changes to said sections are relevant to the Insured’s claim for civil remedy. There may be additional policy language relevant to this violation that may be discovered.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

FIRST PROTECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY (hereinafter the “Insurance Company”) issued a homeowners insurance policy to its insured, BIG SWIG LLC (the “Insured”), for the insured property located at 206 Oak Avenue, Anna Maria, FL 34216. The subject Policy afforded various types of coverages including coverage for damage to dwelling, other structures, personal property, and for loss of use. On or about October 10, 2024, while the subject Policy was in full force and effect, the Insured’s home was damaged as a result of a covered loss. The Insured subsequently notified the Insurance Company of this loss. Thereafter, the Insurance Company acknowledged the loss and assigned claim number 01000126472 to the loss. The Insured complied with all policy conditions and cooperated with the Insurance Company’s investigation efforts. The Insurance Company performed a cursory inspection and failed to retain the unbiased experts necessary to adequately inspect the property to restore the property to its pre-loss condition. Shortly after, the insurance company denied this loss based upon an unqualified evaluation of the damages. Notably, the Insurance Company failed to retain an expert to inspect the property to fully evaluate this claim, relying solely on an inadequate inspection concerning a subject matter and claim their representative is ill-equipped and unqualified to properly evaluate. The Insured and Insured’s representative provided the Insurance Company with all claim-related documents including an estimate to repair covered damages in the amount of $291,200.47 and other supporting documentation and/or information. Nonetheless, the Insurance Company continues to disregard and ignore the Insured’s claim and request for adequate payment. The Insurance Company has failed to issue proper payment for the claim and has failed to issue sufficient payment to compensate the Insured for damages and repairs covered by the policy and held to be contractually covered by Florida law. The Insured provided the Insurance Company with documentation evaluating the loss, and rather than issuing the proper payment or attempting to reach an agreement with its Insured, the Insurance Company is delaying and denying the claim. Upon information and belief, the Insurance Company performs the subject actions as a business practice, including delaying the claim and/or issuing insufficient payments in an attempt to dissuade its insured from pursuing the claim to the detriment of its insured to increase financial profits. Based upon self-serving conclusions regarding the cause of loss, the Insurance Company’s conclusions are disconcerting because they are demonstrably incorrect. Further, they directly conflict with the only first-hand accounts of the loss. To be clear, the Insured had personal knowledge of the condition of the property prior to the date of the loss and the amounts owed to make the necessary repairs. That said, the Insurance Company’s refusal to properly investigate, adjust, and fully compensate the Insured for their claim evidences the Insurance Company’s violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), Florida Statutes, which requires the Insurance Company to “adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.” All available information leads to one conclusion—the Insured’s property was damaged by a covered cause of loss for which the Insured is entitled to full and complete compensation. The Insurance Company’s obligation to promptly settle the Insured’s claim is undeniable, and therefore, the Insurance Company has also violated sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), Florida Statutes. The Insurance Company’s conduct is egregious because the Insurance Company purposely ignored relevant facts, even facts from its own experts, that would have confirmed coverage for the Insured’s loss to avoid having to compensate the Insured for damages. To make matters even worse, the Insurance Company has failed to timely respond to the Insured and issue payment for the damages to the property to allow necessary repairs. The actions taken by the Insurance Company in the handling and adjustment of the Insured’s claim are willful, wanton, and in disregard for the rights of the Insured, and have occurred with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice in violation of the law. The practice includes the Insurance Company’s ongoing inaction of ignoring relevant and accessible information that supports coverage in order to avoid compensating its Insured for covered losses. To be clear, the recent ruling in Fortune v. First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Insurance, out of Florida’s 2nd District Court of Appeal, clears up what this carrier must do the cure this CRN. Similar to here, In Fortune, the Insureds timely filed a claim with their homeowners insurance policy upon suffering damage to their property. The Insurer investigated the claim and denied, contending that the amount of damage did not exceed the Insureds’ deductible. Upon presenting the public adjuster’s estimate and all other materials to the insurance company, the Insurer invoked the appraisal process under the policy.Thereafter, the Insureds filed a Civil Remedy Notice alleging that the insurer made a lowball offer and “flagrantly breached” its duty to attempt in good faith to settle claims, under applicable Florida statutes. Additionally, the Insureds alleged that the Insurer refused to reassess its payment of benefits and the basis for payment and that the Insurer “turn[ed] a blindeye and refuse[d] to properly adjust and settle the claim.” Noteworthy in Fortune is that although the Homeowners' CRN did not state a specific cure amount, it did state that they had provided their public adjustor's estimate to the Insurer which covered "the full scope of necessary repairs to the direct and ensuing damages." Thus, the Insured had the public adjuster's estimate and knew the amount the Homeowners sought. Neither the statute nor this court's precedent requires the CRN to contain a specific amount sought to cure the alleged bad faith. See § 624.155(3)(b); see Hunt v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 112 So. 3d 547, 549 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (recognizing that an appraisal award satisfies the condition precedent of "a determination of liability and extent of damages owed"). In addition to the above statutory violations, the Insurance Company’s adjuster violated the following ethical requirements of Florida Administrative Code 69B-220.201. (3) Code of Ethics…An adjuster shall put the duty for fair and honest treatment of the claimant above the adjuster’s own interests in every instance. The following are standards of conduct that define ethical behavior, and shall constitute a code of ethics that shall be binding on all adjusters: (b) An adjuster shall treat all claimants equally. 2. An adjuster shall adjust all claims strictly in accordance with the insurance contract. (c) An adjuster shall not approach investigations, adjustments, and settlements in a manner prejudicial to the insured. (d) An adjuster shall make truthful and unbiased reports of the facts after making a complete investigation. (e) An adjuster shall handle every adjustment and settlement with honesty and integrity, and allow a fair adjustment or settlement to all parties without any remuneration to himself except that to which he is legally entitled. (f) An adjuster, upon undertaking the handling of a claim, shall act with dispatch and due diligence in achieving a proper disposition of the claim. (o) An adjuster shall not undertake the adjustment of any claim concerning which the adjuster is not currently competent and knowledgeable as to the terms and conditions of the insurance coverage, or which otherwise exceeds the adjuster’s current expertise. In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. During the adjustment of the Insured’s claim, the Insurance Company breached this duty by failing to adhere to and comply with the above referenced obligations. To cure the defects outlined above, the Insurance Company must: 1. Immediately pay the Insured a cure of $291,200.47for losses suffered as a result of the claim; 2. Immediately issue payments for statutory interest for the late payments and owed profit/overhead; 3. Act fairly and honestly towards the Insured and with due regard for their interests; 4. Hire a fair and unbiassed adjuster and experts to properly assess the Insured’s damages; 5. Tender any additional insurance proceeds due and owing to the Insured that would reasonably place the Insured back into a pre-loss condition; 6. Timely adjust the claim with the insured and avoid/limit any additional delay, costs, and prejudice that the Insurance Company’s conduct above has caused and continues to cause the Insured; and 7. Compensate the Insured for the attorneys’ fees and costs accrued as a result of the Insurance Company’s bad faith conduct. Failure to cure all defects during the 60-day safe harbor period may result in additional extra-contractual damages.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
jsuarez@chartwelllaw.com 04-11-2025 April 11, 2025 Daniel Ilani, Esq. The Property People VIA E-MAIL TO: service@propertypeoplelaw.com and Florida Department Of Financial Services Consumer Assistance/Civil Remedy Section Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0322 VIA E-FILING: Dept. of Fianancial Services Civil Remedy Notice Website RE: Big Swig LLC / First Protective Insurance Company Date of Loss: October 10, 2024 Claim No.: 01000126472 CRN Filing No.: 806389 Policy No.: 2846792486 Address: 206 Oak Avenue, Anna Maria, FL 34216 Our File No.: 890.0115754 To Whom It May Concern: This office has been retained by First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Insurance (hereinafter “Frontline”) in connection with the above referenced claim. Please accept the following as Frontline’s Response to the Civil Remedy Notice (“CRN” or “Notice”) filed on February 12, 2025, by or on behalf of Big Swig LLC (“Insured”). Frontline specifically denies each and every allegation contained in the Notice and asserts that the Notice fails to comply with the specificity requirements mandated by Florida Statute § 624.155. A civil remedy notice must set forth specific statutory provisions the insurer allegedly violated, the facts giving rise to the violation, the relevant policy language, and a statement that the notice is given to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by the statute. See Landers v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 234 So. 3d 856, 858 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). Similarly, a civil remedy notice must state the facts and circumstances that give rise to an alleged violation with such specificity sufficient to allow an insurer to cure any alleged violation within the 60-day statutory period. See Lane v. Westfield Insurance Company, 862 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). It is Frontline’s position that the CRN filed by the Insured is deficient pursuant to section 624.155(3)(b), Fla. Stat., which states: The [civil remedy] 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: 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. 5. A statement that the notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section. (emphasis added.) Frontline objects to the filing of the Notice because the Insured failed to comply with section 624.155(3)(b)(2), Fla. Stat., which requires that the Notice include the facts and circumstances giving rise to each violation. While the Notice contains some statements apparently relating to the loss, there are no facts alleged that support or provide notice to the carrier of the specific violations complained of. Many of the alleged violations appear to be a boilerplate recitation of the statute and general conclusory allegations that do not contain any factual support. For example, the Notice alleges that Frontline denied this loss, which is incorrect, as Frontline issued undisputed payments for the covered damages via its coverage determination letters dated November 7, 2024 and January 6, 2025. The Notice also blanketly alleges that the Insured complied with all policy conditions and cooperated with Frontline’s investigation efforts. Frontline notes that during the adjustment of the claim, it issued a reservation of rights letter on November 11, 2024 requesting information and documentation. However, not all of those requests were complied with by the Insured. In fact, Frontline did not receive a copy of the Insured’s estimate until after the filing of this CRN, meaning that Frontline did not even know about a dispute until this Notice was filed. Instead of cooperating with Frontline’s adjustment of the claim and providing information and documentation to support potential additional payment, the Insured prematurely filed this Notice. This further demonstrates the generic nature of the Insured’s Notice and how it fails to provide specificity to support that the Insured’s allegations. Failure to provide such specificity is direct and clear noncompliance with the requirements of section 624.155 and renders the Notice deficient on its face as to form and substance. Indeed, the lack of factual specificity leaves uncertainty as to how to cure the alleged bad-faith conduct. See Valenti v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., No. 8:04-cv-1615-T-30TGW, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36880, at *7 (M.D. Fla. June 6, 2006) (The purpose of the civil remedy notice is to provide insurers one last opportunity to settle a claim with the insured to avoid unnecessary litigation). Additionally, on February 10, 2025, two (2) days prior to the filing of the instant Notice, the Insured’s representative submitted an appraisal demand. Pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 624.155(3)(f), a CRN may not be filed within sixty (60) days after appraisal is invoked by any party in a residential property insurance claim. This Notice was filed prior to the expiration of the sixty (60) day period after appraisal was demanded by the Insured. Therefore, pursuant to Fla. Stat § 624.155, this Notice is therefore improper, premature, and invalid. Frontline also objects to the filing of the Notice as the Insured failed to comply with section 624.155(3)(b)(3), Fla. Stat. Specifically, the Insured failed to list “[t]he name of any individual involved in the violation.” No information is provided by the Insured as to the specific identity of any persons alleged to have caused or contributed to the violations. Clearly, the Insured has failed to list anyone allegedly involved in the violation on the insurer’s behalf. This information is readily available to the Insured and/or its representatives, but they have failed to include it in the Notice in violation of Fla. Stat. §624.155(3)(b)(3). The Insured also failed to comply with section 624.155(3)(b)(4), Fla. Stat., which requires references to specific policy language. Notably, the Notice does not list any specific policy provisions. Instead, the Notice broadly mentions “loss settlement” and “loss payment,” which is overbroad and fails to provide any specificity as to what specific policy language the Insured is relying upon as applied to the facts of this claim. Therefore, the Insured’s failure to list any policy language relevant to the alleged violations fails to comply with Fla. Stat. §624.155(3)(b)(4). See Julien v. United Prop. & Cas, Ins. Co., 2020 Fla. App, LEXIS 13520 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (citing fox v. Starr Indemn. & Liab. Co., No, 8:16-CV-3254-T-23MAP-2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65123, 2017 WL 1541294, at *2 (M.D. Fla, April 28, 2017)) (an insurer’s listing of whole sections of the insurance policy in a civil remedy notice “appear[ed] to lack specificity”). As such, Frontline was not provided with notice of the specific policy language that it allegedly failed to comply with. The Notice does not provide the contemplated and mandated notice of alleged bad faith that is required as a condition precedent to any civil claim for bad faith pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 624.155. Additionally, as described in detail above, the facts alleged in the Notice are overbroad and conclusory and do not contain any specific factual support for the alleged violations. Furthermore, the Notice is deficient in various regards. Frontline, therefore, is unable to ascertain the reasons for the alleged statutory violations from the Notice rendering the Notice deficient. For these reasons, the Notice should be denied and rejected. With regard to the facts of the claim, subject loss was reported to have occurred on October 10, 2024. In order to adjust and investigate the claim, Frontline requested documentation and information, including a sworn proof of loss and documentation supporting the Insured’s claim for damages. Frontline also had the property inspected by an independent adjuster on October 25, 2024. Based on its investigation and the documentation provided, Frontline issued undisputed payments to the Insured for the covered damages as outlined in its correspondences dated November 7, 2024 and January 6, 2025. During the adjustment of the claim, Frontline issued a reservation of rights and request for information letter, which requested copies of any estimates, invoices, or related documents. However, the Insured failed to provide Frontline with all of the requested information prior to the filing of this Notice. In fact, Frontline first received the Insured’s estimate after the instant Notice was filed, evidencing that there was no documentation submitted before the filing of the CRN disputing Frontline’s position. Frontline was never given an opportunity to adjust the Insured’s estimate of damages prior to this Notice being filed. As of the writing of this response, Frontline continues to adjust the claim and has agreed to participate in the appraisal process, which was invoked by the Insured just two (2) days prior to the filing of the instant Notice. As previously mentioned above, a CRN may not be filed within sixty (60) days after appraisal is invoked by any party in a residential property insurance claim pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 624.155. Accordingly, Frontline has adjusted the loss and damages claimed by the Insured to the extent possible despite the Insured’s continuous non-compliance with Frontline’s requests, the terms of the policy, and applicable Florida Statutes. Furthermore, as noted above, as of the filing of this response, Frontline continues to adjust this claim in spite of the Insured’s failures to comply with Frontline’s requests and the policy, and notes that the subject claim is currently in the appraisal process per the Insured’s own request. The Insured alleges various reasons why this Notice was filed and also alleges multiple statutory violations; however, no specific facts or circumstances are provided to support these allegations. As previously stated, the Notice is simply a recitation of general, stock, and unsupported allegations of bad faith conduct which are not specifically alleged or described. Frontline specifically denies that it has violated any of these sections and denies all other allegations of bad faith or improper claims handling in this matter. However, notwithstanding these allegations, the Insured fails to provide factual support for these alleged violations within the body of the Notice. Nonetheless, Frontline denies the following allegations made by the Insured in the Notice: Claim Denial: Frontline denies any allegation pertaining to the denial of the claim. The Insured fails to submit any facts or circumstances in support of this alleged violation. As demonstrated in the factual summary set forth above, Frontline promptly investigated the loss and properly sent coverage determination letters to the Insured in compliance with its duties and obligations under the subject policy of insurance. That letters identified that the portions of the loss that were covered, which contravenes the allegation that the claim as a whole was denied. Claim Delay: Frontline denies any delay on its part in the claim handling and processing of the loss, as is evident from the facts outlined above. Frontline promptly acknowledged the Insured’s claim and timely initiated its investigation of the loss. Frontline’s investigation of the claim revealed there was coverage pursuant to the terms and conditions of the policy. Frontline then immediately sent coverage determination letters to the Insured. At all times throughout the handling and adjustment of this claim, Frontline acted in accordance with its duties and obligations pursuant to the policy of insurance and acted as promptly as possible under the circumstances to advise the Insured of the determination as to coverage for the alleged loss. Furthermore, as noted above, the Insured’s own failures to comply with policy conditions also affected the timeline of the adjustment of the claim. Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer: Frontline denies any allegation pertaining to any unsatisfactory settlement offer with regard to the subject claim. The Insured fails to submit any facts or circumstances in support of this alleged violation. As demonstrated in the factual summary set forth above, Frontline’s investigation of the claim revealed that there was coverage for the Insured’s claim under the terms and conditions of the policy and issued undisputed payments to the Insured within its coverage determination letters. The Insured’s assertions to the contrary lack support. Unfair Trade Practice: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. The Insured submitted no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. At no time did Frontline, its agents, or its employees employ any unfair business practice during the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. Fla. Stat. §624.155(1)(b)(1): Denied. Frontline has not failed to attempt to settle this claim in good faith and has always acted fairly and honestly towards the Insured. As shown in the factual summary above, the conduct of Frontline following its receipt of the first notice of the loss has been compliant with all aspects of Florida law. Frontline promptly investigated the claim, made coverage determinations based on the applicable policy language and Florida law, and promptly advised the Insured of the determinations. Frontline asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligations set forth in the subject insurance policy. Separately, Frontline has continued to adjust the claim as noted above, and Insured has impeded Frontline’s continued investigation of the claim. Fla. Stat. §624.155(1)(b)(2): There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. The Insured submits no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. As shown in the factual summary above, Frontline’s investigation of the claim revealed that there was coverage for the Insured’s claim under the terms and conditions of the policy. Frontline then immediately sent coverage determination letters to the Insured. At all times throughout the handling and adjustment of this claim, Frontline acted in accordance with its duties and obligations pursuant to the policy of insurance and acted as promptly as possible under the circumstances to advise the Insured of the determinations as to coverage for the alleged loss. Fla. Stat. §624.155(1)(b)(3): Denied. Again, Frontline has not failed to promptly settle this claim. As supported by the above claim facts, Frontline asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Frontline promptly investigated the claim, made coverage determinations based on the applicable policy language and Florida law, and promptly advised the Insured of the determinations. The Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. Separately, Frontline has continued to adjust the claim as noted above, and the Insured has impeded Frontline’s continued investigation of the claim. Fla. Stat. §626.9541(1)(i)(2): Denied. There is no showing by the Insured to support this allegation of misrepresentation purportedly made for the purpose and with the intent of effecting settlement of the subject claims on less favorable terms than those provided in, and contemplated by, the subject policy of insurance. As shown above, Frontline was completely forthcoming with the Insured at all times material hereto. The Insured does not submit any facts or circumstances in support of this alleged violation. Frontline asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligations set forth in the subject policy. Fla. Stat. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Denied. This allegation is without basis. Frontline has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of claims at all times. The aforementioned facts demonstrate that Frontline employed proper and customary claims practices in the investigation and adjustment of this claim, and in strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Furthermore, the Insured submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. Separately, Frontline has continued to adjust the claim as noted above, and the Insured has impeded Frontline’s continued investigation of the claim. Fla. Stat. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b): Denied. Again, there is no showing by the Insured to support this baseless allegation of misrepresentation of pertinent facts or policy provisions relating to the coverages at issue. Frontline has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of claims at all times. The aforementioned facts demonstrate that Frontline employed proper practices in the investigation and adjustment of this claim, and in strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. As shown above, Frontline was completely forthcoming with the Insured at all times material hereto. Frontline asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligations set forth in the subject insurance policy. The Insured does not submit any facts or circumstances in support of this alleged violation. Fla. Stat. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c): There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. There is no showing by the Insured to support this baseless allegation of failing to acknowledge or act properly upon communications with respect to the claim. As shown in the detailed factual summary above, Frontline was forthcoming with the Insured at all times material hereto and acted as promptly as possible under the circumstances to advise the Insured of its coverage determinations. The Insured does not submit any facts or circumstances in support of this alleged violation. Moreover, Frontline asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligations set forth in the subject insurance policy. Fla. Stat. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d): Denied. This allegation is without basis. As demonstrated above, Frontline asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Frontline promptly investigated the claim, made coverage determinations based on the applicable policy language and Florida law, and promptly advised the Insured of the determinations. The Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. Fla. Stat. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e): Denied. As set forth in the factual summary provided above, Frontline sent correspondence acknowledging the claim immediately upon receiving the first notice of loss. Frontline also promptly notified the Insured of Frontline’s coverage determinations and advised of the pertinent policy provisions supporting same. The Insured does not submit any facts or circumstances in support of this alleged violation. Moreover, Frontline asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligations set forth in the subject insurance policy. Fla. Stat. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f): Denied. Again, there is no showing by the Insured to support this alleged violation. As set forth above, Frontline promptly informed the Insured of its coverage determinations and issued coverage letters to the Insured. Moreover, Frontline asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligations set forth in the subject insurance policy. The Insured does not submit any facts or circumstances in support of this alleged violation. In fact, as of the filing of this response, Frontline continues to adjust this claim in spite of the Insured’s failures to comply with Frontline’s requests and the policy. Fla. Stat. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g): Denied. There is no showing by the Insured to support this baseless allegation of failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of the claim. As shown in the factual summary above, Frontline issued correspondences to the Insured and/or its representatives which included requests for additional information and documentation, including a sworn proof of loss. The Insured does not submit any facts or circumstances in support of this alleged violation. Moreover, Frontline asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligations set forth in the subject insurance policy. Separately, Frontline has continued to adjust the claim as noted above, and the Insured has impeded Frontline’s continued investigation of the claim. Fla. Stat. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h): Denied. Again, there is no showing by the Insured to support this baseless allegation of failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reason why such information is necessary. As shown in the factual summary above, Frontline issued correspondences to the Insured and/or its representatives which included requests for additional information and documentation, including a sworn proof of loss. The Insured does not submit any facts or circumstances in support of this alleged violation. Moreover, Frontline asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligations set forth in the subject insurance policy. Fla. Stat. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i): Denied. There is no showing by the Insured to support this baseless allegation of failing to pay personal injury projection insurance claims within the time periods required by Fla. Stat. 627.736(4)(b). As shown in the factual summary above, the subject claim is a first-party property insurance claim, not a personal injury protection insurance claim. The Insured does not submit any facts or circumstances in support of this alleged violation. Moreover, Frontline asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligations set forth in the subject insurance policy. Frontline further denies that it violated any of the ethical requirements of Florida Administrative Code 69B-220.2021 as alleged in the Notice. Frontline has acted reasonably in adjusting the loss based on the information available to it and in accordance with the terms of the subject policy. Frontline conducted, and is still conducting, a reasonable and diligent investigation to assess the damages in this loss in spite of the Insured’s failure to comply with its post-loss duties and has promptly communicated with the Insured throughout the investigation—all within the mandates of Florida law. Throughout the handling of the Insured’s insurance claim, Frontline has acted in good faith towards the interests of its Insured. Frontline investigated the loss in accordance with the policy provisions and standard claims handling practices. Frontline, therefore, denies any allegations to the contrary. In further response to the Notice, Frontline denies the allegations therein and denies that it has violated any Florida Statute, rule, law, or other authority in its handling of the Insured’s claim. We trust that the foregoing is sufficient to advise of Frontline’s position with regard to the Civil Remedy Notice filed by the Insured. If any additional information is required, please feel free to contact the undersigned regarding same. Very truly yours, CHARTWELL LAW By: Joseph A. Suarez
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