Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     806800
Filing Accepted:  2/13/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
AND MICHAEL DIMARCO   First Name   ANKICA MARJANOVIC
Street Address * 1921 BONSER ROAD
City, State Zip * MINNEOLA, FL 34715
Email Address * INTAKE2@THEKRFIRM.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   AND MICHAEL DIMARCO   First Name   ANKICA MARJANOVIC
Policy # * 80-C1-Y342-7 Claim #* 59-72S5-79Z
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* KADIR First Name * ALI Initial A.
Street Address* 986 DOUGLAS AVE, STE. 102
City, State Zip* ALTAMONTE SPRINGS , FL 32714
Email Address * INTAKE2@THEKRFIRM.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10739
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* RILEY J. DONAHUE, SHANNA PULLIN, RICHARD A. MORRIS, EMILY S. PRESSNALL, AVERY V. GURR, ALI [SEEKNOW TECHNICIAN LAST NAME UNKNOWN], SEEKNOW, AND ALL STATE FARM CLAIMS ADJUSTERS, EMPLOYEES, REPRESENTATIVES, AGENTS, VENDORS, AND/OR ENGINEERS WHO HANDLED
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
Claim Delay
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Unfair Trade Practice
Other : Misrepresentation
* Statutory provision(s) which the insurer allegedly violated.
 
624.155(1)(b)(1) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests.
624.155(1)(b)(3) Except as to liability coverages, failing to promptly settle claims, when the obligation to settle a claim has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(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.
* 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 will pay for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage A, unless the loss is excluded or limited in SECTION I – LOSSES NOT INSURED or otherwise excluded or limited in this policy. . . . . COVERAGE B – PERSONAL PROPERTY We will pay for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage B caused by the following perils, unless the loss is excluded or limited in SECTION I – LOSSES NOT INSURED or otherwise excluded or limited in this policy. . . . . 2. Windstorm or hail.”
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Ankica Marjanovic and Michael Dimarco (“the Insureds”) are homeowner insureds with a policy issued by State Farm Florida Insurance Company (“State Farm”). The insured property or home is located at 1921 Bonser Road, Minneola, Florida 34715. In July of 2024, a wind and rainstorm caused extensive damage to the Insureds’ home. The Insureds timely reported an insurance claim for this damage to State Farm and fully cooperated with all requests for inspections. They provided all requested documentation, if any, and complied with all post loss policy conditions. Four tarp mitigation invoices as well as an estimate for repair of all damages were prepared on their behalf totaling $86,958.87 and were submitted to State Farm. After reporting the claim, State Farm retained an unqualified and biased field adjuster who has a financial relationship with State Farm. This field adjuster inspected the Insureds’ home in an apparent effort to minimize State Farm’s losses instead of adjusting the claim in good faith in due regard for the Insureds’ interests. Based on these findings, State Farm completely denied coverage for the Insureds’ claim. Due to such bad faith claim handling, the Insureds have been unable to permanently repair their home. Based on these facts, it is clear State Farm unreasonably denied coverage for the Insureds’ claim in bad faith. It denied coverage for the claim without conducting a reasonable investigation based upon the available information. It misrepresented pertinent policy provisions and facts and did not act fairly and honestly with the Insureds in due regard for their interests. State Farm also delayed the claim and failed to timely respond to communications. It further failed to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of this claim. This has become a common business practice of State Farm. Florida Statute § 624.02 defines insurance as a contract whereby one undertakes to indemnify another or pay or allow a specified amount or a determinable benefit based on determinable contingencies. Inherent is the fact that payment must be made timely and promptly so that insureds may mitigate their damages and be put back into the position they were in prior to the loss as quickly as possible. State Farm has breached this duty by refusing to properly and timely adjust the loss. As a result, the Insureds will have no choice but to retain the undersigned counsel to file a lawsuit against State Farm. State Farm has more than enough information and is still refusing to accept coverage for this claim. This continued and repeated reckless claim delay and denial of coverage will result in a significant punitive damage award if a bad faith lawsuit is filed. State Farm can avoid a lawsuit for bad faith by immediately accepting full coverage under the subject insurance policy for this claim and by paying the Insureds based on their $86,958.87 estimate and invoices.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
jgrass@hamiltonmillerlaw.com 02-27-2025 Sent by electronic mail Ankica Marjanovic and Michael DiMarco c/o Ali A. Kadir 2110 West Platt Street Tampa, Florida 33606 Email: INTAKE2@THEKRFIRM.COM Re: Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations Complainant: Ankica Marjanovic and Michael DiMarco Named Insureds: Ankica Marjanovic and Michael DiMarco Claim Number: 59-72S5-79Z Date of Loss: July 14, 2024 DFS File No.: 806800 Acceptance Date: February 13, 2025 Dear Ms. Kadir, This correspondence constitutes State Farm Florida Insurance Company’s, (hereinafter “State Farm”), response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation filed on behalf of Ankica Marjanovic and Michael DiMarco (also referred to as “Complainant”) regarding the claim listed above. State Farm welcomes the opportunity to respond to this Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation and specifically denies each and every allegation contained in the Civil Remedy Notice filed in relation to this claim. At all times during the handling of this claim, State Farm acted fairly and honestly toward its insured, fairly considered information in regard to the matters at hand and fully observed its contractual, statutory and administrative obligations. State Farm has carefully reviewed, considered, and evaluated the alleged violations charged and believes they are completely without merit. State Farm has fulfilled and is fulfilling its duties as provided under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Based on the foregoing, all allegations of wrong-doing, unfair trade practices, misrepresentations and a lack of good faith conduct in connection with the above claim are denied. With that said, State Farm believes that the Civil Remedy Notice you filed fails to comply with the specific notice and information requirements as set forth in Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation document provisions as set forth in Florida Statute §624.155 and Florida Case law. The statute creating [a] cause of action against first-party insurer for bad-faith failure to settle needed to be strictly construed as in derogation of the common law. Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). A first-party bad faith claim is in derogation of the common law and mut be strictly construed. See e.g., Julien V United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCCA 2021); Demase v State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 351 Do. 3f 136, 140 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022) (J. Sasso, concurring specially). With that said, State Farm believes that the Civil Remedy Notice filed on your client’s behalf fails to comply with the specific notice and information requirements set forth in Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations document provisions as set forth in Florida Statute 624.155 and Florida case law. However, State Farm’s response in no way waives any prejudice created by Complainant’s failure to comply with the requirements of the statute. State Farm maintains that the CRN fails to provide the policy language that is relevant to the alleged violations, fails to adequately describe the alleged violations, fails to provide a proper, specific cure and fails to provide sufficient information to allow State Farm to correct (cure) the alleged violations. Therefore, the Department of Financial Services should have rejected and returned the CRN based upon these deficiencies. State Farm’s response to CRN No. 806800, does not in any way waive any argument of prejudice created by the defects in Complainant’s CRN. To the extent that State Farm has the ability to respond to the CRN, it will do so. The Civil Remedy Notice fails to properly set forth specific policy language alleged to have been violated in accordance with Florida Statute 624.155. Without asserting the policy language that is relevant to the question of coverage, it cannot reasonably be asserted by Complainant that coverage is owed under said Policy, or that any provision of said Policy has been violated. The errors here, serve as a technical defect as the Civil Remedy Notice fails to comply with Florida Statute 624.155’s specificity requirements. This failure to properly identify the policy language allegedly relevant to the purported violations prevents State Farm from addressing any issues regarding the policy and is another reason why it does not comply with Florida Statute 624.155. See Demase v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., No. 5D21-2078 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Nov. 14, 2022) (citing Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. CO., 311 So. 3d 875, 878 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (concluding that the Insured failed to comply with section 624.155’s specificity requirements when listing nearly all policy sections and thirty-give statutory provisions, which the court determined to be “more than a technical defect,” resulting in rejection of the notice). The Civil Remedy Notice fails to properly set forth specific policy language alleged to have been violated in accordance with Florida Statute 624.155(3)(b)(4), and for this reason, the Civil Remedy Notice is insufficient as a matter of law. Moreover, the Civil Remedy Notice lacks the specificity as required by 624.155(3)(b), Fla. Stat. and contains false allegations and misrepresentations of fact. See Lopez v. Geico Casualty Co., 968 F. Supp. 2d 1202 (S.D. Fla. 2013) (dismissing the insured's bad faith action her against the insurer, because the insured filed her civil remedy notice against the insurer's related entity, not her insurer), and Sandalwood Estates Homeowner's Association v. Empire Indemnity Insurance Co., 665 F. Supp. 2d 1355 (S.D. Fla. 2009) (dismissing the insured's bad faith action against its insurer's parent company, because the insured filed its civil remedy notice against its insurer, not the insurer's parent company), See also Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (Insured's civil remedy notice to insurer failed to include specific information required to allege circumstances giving rise to insured's bad-faith claim regarding homeowner's insurance policy, where notice listed every statutory provision and every policy provision available to him as an insured. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 624.155.), and Fonollosa v Am. Integrity Ins. Co. of FL, 2021 Fla. Cir. Lexis 5 (11 th Cir Ct., Miami-Dade Cty 2021) holding (the CRNs do not satisfy the requirements of section 624.155(3)(b) because they do not state with specificity the facts and circumstances giving rise the alleged violations, names of individuals involved, statutory provisions and specific language of the statutes allegedly violated, or the specific policy language relevant to the alleged violations. The failure to properly allege a violation in the Civil Remedy Notice is a failure to comply with 624.155, Florida Statute. "Because the statute is in derogation of the common law, [courts] strictly construe the statutory requirements." Julien v. United Property & Casualty Ins. Ca, No. 4D19-2763, 2020 WL 5652364 (Fla. 4th DCA Sept. 23, 2020) (citing Talat, 753 So. 2d at 1283). Courts strictly construe the notice requirements because "the CRN is designed to prevent insurers from playing a guessing game as to what, and how, to cure within the sixty-day window." King v. Gov't Employees Ins. Co., No. 8:10-CV- 977-T-30AEP, 2012 WL 4052271, (M.D. Fla. Sept.13, 2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Notice is completely devoid of any specific facts regarding State Farm’s claims investigation. Moreover, Complainant completely fails to provide any facts in support of their Civil Remedy Notice. Notwithstanding, as an initial matter, the insured reported their claim on August 22, 2024, 39 days after the reported date of loss of July 14, 2024. State Farm promptly investigated the claim and issued its coverage determination letter in accordance with the policy terms and the results of the investigation. Thus, the facts show that State Farm evaluated all information submitted to it and rendered its coverage determination. The Complainant simply disagrees with the coverage determination but that does not mean that amounts to a violation of Section 624.155. Furthermore, nowhere in the Notice does it specify the basis under the policy for the cure. The purpose of a Civil Remedy Notice is to provide a carrier with one last opportunity to “cure” the alleged violations. However, the method “for curing the violations alleged in a civil remedy notice are not determined by the Insured. In Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 753 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 2000), the Florida Supreme Court accepted and quoted the reasoning of the court below in its opinion which stated in relevant part, as follows: Section 624.155 does not impose on an insurer the obligation to pay effect or purpose under such an interpretation. The law does not support such an expansive and illogical reading of Fla. Stat. Ann. §624.155(2)(d). . . . [t]o cure an alleged violation and to avoid a civil action, an insurer must pay the claim . . . before the sixty days expire. Talat, 753 So2d at 1282 citing Talat Enterprises Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 952 F.Supp. 773, 777-778 (M.D. Fla. 1996). The law does not support such an expansive and illogical reading of Fla. Stat. Ann. §624.155(2)(d). Talat, 753 So2d at 1282 citing Talat Enterprises Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 952 F.Supp. 773, 777- 778 (M.D. Fla. 1996). Because [the] statute creating cause of action against first party insurer for bad-faith failure to settle is in derogation of the common law, courts strictly construe the statutory requirements…the plain language of section 624.155(3)(b) instructs the policyholder to “state with specificity” information in the notice; to specify “language of the statute, which the authorized insurer allegedly violated;” and to “[r]eference ... specific policy language that is relevant to the violation, if any.” Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). The Notice When asked to identify the person or persons most responsible for or most knowledgeable of the allegations, the Notice states “RILEY J. DONAHUE, SHANNA PULLIN, RICHARD A. MORRIS, EMILY S. PRESSNALL, AVERY V. GURR, ALI [SEEKNOW TECHNICIAN LAST NAME UNKNOWN], SEEKNOW, AND ALL STATE FARM CLAIMS ADJUSTERS, EMPLOYEES, REPRESENTATIVES, AGENTS, VENDORS, AND/OR ENGINEERS WHO HANDLED”. State Farm denies that any of its adjusters, supervisors, management, and/or other individuals violated any policy or statutory provision. At all times, State Farm acted fairly and with due diligence both in its claim review actions, and towards the Complainants and their representatives, throughout the claim. Reason for Notice Complainants list “Claim Denial, Claim Delay, Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer, Unfair Trade Practice, Misrepresentation” as the reason for their Civil Remedy Notice. State Farm issued its coverage determination letter, in accordance with the policy terms and the results of the investigation. Therefore, this reasoning is without basis, is false, is conclusory, and is denied. There does not appear to be a delay of any type in providing the coverage determination letter to the insured, which clearly outlines the findings of the inspection and the relevant policy language. Section 624.155 does not impose on an insurer the obligation to pay whatever the insured demands. Complainant’s Notice provides boilerplate, conclusory allegations that State Farm failed to pay the claim. Furthermore, the CRN fails to state what unfair trade practices that State Farm allegedly engages in or provide any underlying facts to support this baseless allegation. For this reason, the CRN is without basis, is false, is conclusory, and is denied. Additionally, there are no facts to support the allegation that State Farm wrongfully looked for ways to deny full recovery to the Insured, nor that it looked for ways to delay full recovery to the Insured within the CRN. The Notice contains no facts to support this allegation. These allegations are unsupported, are conclusory, and are denied. Based hereupon, the Department of Financial Services should have rejected and returned the Civil Remedy Notice based upon these deficiencies and its insufficiency as a matter of law. State Farm’s response to the Civil Remedy Notice does not constitute a waiver of any argument of prejudice created by the defects therein. The documented facts clearly reflect that State Farm promptly responded to the Complainants’ claim, performed a professional inspection of claimed damages, and advised the Complainants of State Farm’s position on coverage. State Farm acted fairly and reasonably toward the Complainants. Its handling of the claim was responsive to the Complainants, and State Farm remained professional while seeking full and complete information in accordance with the specific terms of the insurance policy in considering whether coverage exists or payment was due. Specifically, the CRN alleges violation of: FS 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. State Farm denies violation of section 624.155(1)(b)(1), because it made a good faith effort to appropriately investigate and evaluate the Complainant’s claim. State Farm has, at all times, acted in accordance with the terms, conditions, and coverages of the insurance policy. State Farm inspected the subject property, reviewed all documents and information provided and advised of its evaluation and coverage determination in compliance with the policy. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting the Complainants’ allegations have been set forth in the Notice. Thus, this allegation of a statutory violation is denied. The CRN fails to provide facts or information to support this alleged violation. FS 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 settlement under other portions of the insurance policy coverage. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting the Complainants’ allegation has been set forth in the Notice. Thus, this allegation of a statutory violation is denied. The CRN fails to provide facts or information to support this alleged violation. FS 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Failing to adopt and implement standards for property investigation of claims. The facts show that State Farm promptly responded to the Complainants’ claim and assigned representatives to investigate the claim. State Farm then made a coverage determination in compliance with the policy. Accordingly, this allegation is not factually supported and is denied. The CRN fails to provide facts or information to support this alleged violation. FS 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b): Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. The facts show that State Farm promptly responded to the Complainants’ claim and assigned representatives to investigate the claim. State Farm then made a coverage determination in compliance with the policy. Accordingly, this allegation is conclusory, is not factually supported, and is denied. The CRN fails to provide facts or information to support this alleged violation. FS 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c): Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. The facts show that State Farm promptly responded to the Complainants’ claim and assigned representatives to investigate the claim. State Farm then made a coverage determination in compliance with the policy. Accordingly, this allegation is not factually supported and is denied. The CRN fails to provide facts or information to support this alleged violation. FS 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d): Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information. The facts show that State Farm promptly responded to the Complainants’ claim and assigned representatives to investigate the claim. State Farm then made a coverage determination in compliance with the policy. This allegation is conclusory, is not factually supported, and is denied. The CRN fails to provide facts or information to support this alleged violation. FS 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 coverer, 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. The facts show that State Farm promptly responded to the Complainants’ claim and assigned representatives to investigate the claim. State Farm then made a coverage determination in compliance with the policy. Accordingly, this allegation is not factually supported and is denied. Additionally, State Farm never received a proof-of-loss statement from the insured for the subject loss prior to the CRN filing. Subsequent to the CRN filing, State Farm received an improper proof-of-loss statement to which State Farm responded in writing. Additionally, State Farm did provide the written coverage letter for the subject claim to Plaintiff’s representatives. The CRN fails to provide facts or information to support this alleged violation. FS 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. The facts show that State Farm promptly responded to the Complainants’ claim and assigned representatives to investigate the claim. State Farm then made a coverage determination in compliance with the policy. State Farm provided the written coverage determination and a copy of the subject policy to Plaintiff’s representatives. Accordingly, this allegation is not factually supported and is denied. The CRN fails to provide facts or information to support this alleged violation. FS 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g): Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim. The facts show that State Farm promptly responded to the Complainants’ claim and assigned representatives to investigate the claim. State Farm then made a coverage determination in compliance with the policy. Additionally, State Farm provided multiple written correspondence outlining the Insured’s Duties After Loss and provided a copy of the subject policy. Accordingly, this allegation is not factually supported and is denied. The CRN fails to provide facts or information to support this alleged violation. FS 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h): Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reason why such information is necessary. The facts show that State Farm promptly responded to the Complainants’ claim and assigned representatives to investigate the claim. State Farm then made a coverage determination in compliance with the policy. Additionally, State Farm provided multiple written correspondence outlining the Insured’s Duties After Loss and provided a copy of the subject policy. Accordingly, this allegation is not factually supported and is denied. The CRN fails to provide facts or information to support this alleged violation. It is important to note, that while an insurance company is required to settle claims that should be settled, it is not required to settle claims that are legitimately contested. Florida law continually affirms the principle that an insurer has the right to investigate claims presented for payment. An insurance company is expressly afforded an opportunity to evaluate its rights and liabilities. Neither the subject policy nor Florida law provide that a carrier must accept whatever demand for repairs/services is provided by the Complainant. Alleged Policy Violations In reference to the specific policy language that is relevant to the violation, the Complainants states, broadly: “COVERAGE A – DWELLING We will pay for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage A, unless the loss is excluded or limited in SECTION I – LOSSES NOT INSURED or otherwise excluded or limited in this policy. . . . . COVERAGE B – PERSONAL PROPERTY We will pay for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage B caused by the following perils, unless the loss is excluded or limited in SECTION I – LOSSES NOT INSURED or otherwise excluded or limited in this policy. . . . . 2. Windstorm or hail.” The Notice simply references the policy portions but does not include specific language. This failure to identify any specific policy provision allegedly relevant to the purported violations prevents State Farm from addressing any issues regarding the policy and is another reason why it does not comply with F.S. § 624.155. This deficiency prevents State Farm from engaging in any meaningful review of the policy terms and conditions with which the Insured takes issue. Additionally, State Farm is not aware of any clamed damage to Personal Property. As such, due to the broad nature of the policy language cited, State Farm is unable to determine what policy language it purportedly violated and thus unable to determine how to cure the purported violation. The Proposed Cure is Invalid The Notice also does not properly allege what State Farm must do to cure these purported defects. State Farm did not commit any violations to it must now cure. In addition, the Complainants did not allege valid methods for curing the violations as alleged in a Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations. A civil remedy notice is “designed to be a cure period that will encourage payment of the underlying claim, and avoid unnecessary bad faith litigation.” Demase v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 239 So. 3d 218, 221 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (quoting Talat Enters., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1282 (Fla. 2000). The Florida Supreme Court has explained the requirement to provide a valid cure: Section 624.155 does not impose on an insurer the obligation to pay whatever the Insured demands. Section 624.155(2)(d) would have no effect or purpose under such an interpretation. The law does not support such an expansive and illogical reading of Fla. Stat. Ann. § 624.155(2)(d). Talat Enters., 753 So. 2d at 1282 (citing Talat Enters. Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 952 F. Supp. 773, 777-78 (M.D. Fla. 1996)). The purported cure is precisely the type of expansive and illogical demand that the Florida Supreme Court rejected in Talat. The purported demand is vague, broad, and unsupported. The Notice fails to contain any specific facts showing that State Farm or its agents acted in bad faith in the investigation, inspection, evaluation, or handling of this claim. No basis under the policy has been presented where coverage should have been afforded. Therefore, the purported “cure” is invalid. In closing, State Farm firmly believes that the Civil Remedy Notice does not comply with Florida Statute 624.155, and regardless of the lack of the compliance, State Farm denies all allegations contained in the Civil Remedy Notice and submits there are no violations. State Farm handled the Complainants’ claim with diligence and has, at all times, acted fairly in the adjustment of the claim and has treated the Complainants with honesty and due regard to their interests, and State Farm has done so in compliance with the policy of insurance and Florida law. While this response is meant to be comprehensive, State Farm’s response above is based upon the limited information provided in the Civil Remedy Notice and the information we have to date. If the Complainant feels that we are not in possession of all the facts, please inform us immediately. Please note that State Farm’s response is not necessarily exhaustive and does not preclude us from asserting any other valid reason for seeking rejection and return of the Civil Remedy Notice. Also, this letter or any act or failure to act on the part of State Farm or any agent or representative of State Farm construed as a waiver of any rights or defenses, including by not limited to proper notice and service by the Complainant available to it by contract or at law as all such rights and defenses are hereby specifically reserved. We trust that this response addresses the allegations of insurer violation alleged in the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation. If the Complainants honestly believe that there was any type of violation, State Farm has requested and continues its requests that the Complainants cooperate and provide specific information with respect to each alleged violation, including the name of each individual involved, the date of each violation, a description of each violation, and copies of documentation referencing each violation. As it stands now, the Notice is insufficient for the purpose of allowing State Farm to fully respond and/or remedy the alleged violations, if any. Should you have any questions regarding this matter or need anything further, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Sincerely, Cory Alonso Counsel for State Farm Florida Insurance Comapny
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