Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     806997
Filing Accepted:  2/14/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
RANDES   First Name   KAREN & ROY
Street Address * 11809 CROSS VINE DR
City, State Zip * RIVERVIEW, FL 33579
Email Address * KER505@AOL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   RANDES   First Name   KAREN & ROY
Policy # * P015695371 Claim #* 262635
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* ADAMS First Name * JOHN Initial W
Street Address* 1074 BLOOMINGDALE AVE
City, State Zip* VALRICO , FL 33596
Email Address * JADAMS@ADAMSLAWASSOCIATION.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10117
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* ANDREW GREEN
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
Unfair Trade Practice
Other : Failure to provide coverage for a covered loss
Other : Failure to investigate claim in consultation with the insured
Other : Failure to issue all payments due and owing
Other : Failure to address concerns of health and safety at the insured property
* Statutory provision(s) which the insurer allegedly violated.
 
624.155(1)(b)(1) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests.
626.9541(1)(i)(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)(g) Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Reason for Notice: Claim Delay Unfair Trade Practice Other: Failure to provide coverage for a covered loss Other: Failure to investigate claim in consultation with the insured Other: Failure to issue all payments due and owing Other: Failure to address concerns of health and safety at the insured property PURSUANT TO SECTION 624.155, F.S. please indicate all statutory provisions alleged to have been violated. 624.155(1)(b)(1) -- Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests; 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) -- Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. 626.9541(1)(i) -- Unfair claim settlement practices. 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)(g) -- Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim. 627.70131 – (5)(a) Within 90 days after an insurer receives notice of a property insurance claim from a policyholder, the insurer shall pay or deny such claim or a portion of the claim unless the failure to pay such claim or a portion of the claim is caused by factors beyond the control of the insurer which reasonably prevent such payment. 626.9541(1)(a)(1) -- Misrepresenting the terms of an insurance policy. 626.9541(1)(i)(2) -- Making a material misrepresentation 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. 69B-220.201(3)(B)(2) – An adjuster shall adjust all claims strictly in accordance with the insurance contract 69B-220.201(3)(C) – An adjuster shall not approach investigations, adjustments, and settlements in a manner prejudicial to the insured. 69B-220.201(3)(D) – An adjuster shall make truthful and unbiased reports of the facts after making a complete investigation 69B-220.201(3)(E) – An adjuster shall handle every adjustment and settlement with honesty and integrity, and allow a fair adjustment or settlement to all parties 69B-220.201(3)(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 69B-220.201(3)(G) – An adjuster shall promptly report to the department any conduct by any licensed insurance representative of this state which violates any provision of the insurance code or department rule or order. Reference to specific policy language… THE POLICY LANGUAGE RELEVANT TO THE VIOLATIONS INCLUDES ALL APPLICABLE POLICY COVERAGES, VALUATION PROVISIONS, AND OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE POLICY. SEE: SECTION I COVERAGES; COVERAGE “A” (DWELLING); COVERAGE “C” (PERSONAL PROPERTY); COVERAGE “D” (LOSS OF USE) THE DECLARATIONS PAGE; LOSS PAYMENT AND SETTLEMENT PROVISIONS; DUTIES IN EVENT OF LOSS POLICY PROVISIONS; ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE INSURANCE POLICY; AND ALL ENDORSEMENTS TO THE POLICY, INCLUDING ALL FLORIDA ENDORSEMENTS
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

FACTS OF THE CASE: THIS IS THE FIRST CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE FILED IN AN ATTEMPT TO PLEA FOR THE PROPER ADJUSTMENT OF THIS CLAIM. SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE HAS COMMITTED THE FOLLOWING IN INTERACTIONS WITH THE CLAIM: 1) FAILURE TO ACT IN DUE DILIGENCE AND GOOD FAITH TO RESOLVE CLAIMS; 2) PLACING THE FINANCIAL INTEREST OF INSURER BEFORE THAT OF POLICY HOLDERS AND CLAIMANTS; 3) FAILURE TO PROPERLY TRAIN, EVALUATE, AND MANAGE ADJUSTERS RETAINED TO REPRESENT THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES OF SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE; (4) LOOKING FOR WAYS TO DELAY BENEFIT PAYMENTS AND OTHERWISE OR “STONE WALL” CLAIMS; (5) THE REASONS FOR THIS MAY BE ATTRIBUTED TO IMPROPER TRAINING, SUPERVISION, AND/OR MOTIVATION OF OUTSIDE ADJUSTERS AND CLAIMS SUPERVISORS TO PROMPTLY AND FAIRLY ADJUST AND PAY FULL BENEFITS AVAILABLE TO PARTIES WITH AN INSURABLE INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY. (6) MAKING MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATIONS OF FLORIDA LAW TO THE INSUREDS. ULTIMATELY, THE INSURER FAILED TO ADOPT PROPER STANDARDS OF INVESTIGATION AND ADJUSTMENT OF LOSSES OR IS OTHERWISE NOT IMPLEMENTING THOSE STANDARDS BECAUSE A PROPER ADHERENCE TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF FLORIDA STATUTES CHAPTER 624, 626 AND 627 IS NOT OCCURRING. ON OCTOBER 9, 2024, THE INSURED’S HOME WAS SEVERELY DAMAGED BY SUSTAINED WINDS OF 120 MILES PER HOUR BY HURRICANE MILTON AND THE INSURED SUFFERED A SUBSTANTIAL LOSS REGARDING THEIR REAL PROPERTY AND PERSONAL PROPERTY. THEREAFTER, THE INSURED CALLED SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE TO REPORT THE CLAIM FOR PROPERTY DAMAGE TO THE PROPERTY AND REQUEST MUCH NEEDED HELP AND DIRECTION AFTER THE INSURED’S LIFE HAD BEEN TURNED UPSIDE DOWN. AMERICAN STRATEGIC INSURANCE CORP INVESTIGATED THE CLAIM, ENGAGED AN INSURANCE CLAIMS ADJUSTER. SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE’S ADJUSTER OR THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR TOOK PHOTOGRAPHS, INTERVIEWED THE INSUREDS BY TAKING STATEMENTS, AND VISITED AND INSPECTED THE PROPERTY. UPON INFORMATION AND BELIEF, THE CARRIER NOR THEIR THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR ENGAGED ANY ENGINEERS TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION AT THE PROPERTY IN LIGHT OF THE CLEAR STRUCTURAL DAMAGE. ADDITIONALLY, UPON INFORMATION AND BELIEF, THE CARRIER NOR THEIR THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR PRODUCED ANY REPORT AND HAS ADMITTED IT HAS NOT RENDERED A COVERAGE DECISION. AFTER EIGHTEEN (18) WEEKS POST LOSS, SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE CONTINUES TO STALL AND BALK AT THE INSURED’S CONTINUOUS ATTEMPTS FOR HELP AS THEY ARE LEFT IN A DANGEROUS CONDITION AND LEFT ONLY TO THEIR OWN VERY LIMITED RESOURCES TO REPAIR THE DAMAGE. MEANWHILE, THE INSURED CONTINUES TO BE TREATED LIKE A SECOND-CLASS CITIZEN FORCED TO REPAIR WHAT IS CLEARLY A DANGEROUS CONDITION AFTER CATEGORY 3 HURRICANE DAMAGE IN SPITE OF SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE BEING PLACED ON NOTICE AND BEGGED FOR HELP. IT IS UNCONSCIONABLE THAT SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE COULD ACCEPT PREMIUMS, CONDUCT AN INITIAL INVESTIGATION, AND DENY OR FAIL TO OFFER ALL COVERAGES AVAILABLE. SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE HAS BEEN GIVEN COMPLETE ACCESS TO THE INSURED PROPERTY, HAS NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY THROUGH THEIR OWN UNLIMITED ACCESS INSPECTION AND PHOTOGRAPHS. SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE HAS ALSO BEEN PLACED ON NOTICE THROUGH THE REPEATED CALLS FROM THE INSURED ASKING FOR UPDATES AND REQUESTING CLAIMS PAYMENT TO RETURN THE PROPERTY TO ITS PRE-LOSS CONDITION. INSTEAD OF RE-INSPECTING THE PROPERTY AND ISSUING ALL AVAILABLE PAYMENTS FOR COVERAGE UNDER THE POLICY, WHICH WAS IN FULL FORCE, SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE HAS INSTEAD IGNORED THE INSURED. ON OCTOBER 18, 2024, THE ADAMS LAW ASSOCIATION, RETAINED BY THE INSURED IN ORDER TO BEG AND PLEA FOR THE CARRIER TO PROPERLY ADJUST THE LOSS, PREPARED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, REQUEST TO ADJUST CLAIM AS WELL A COPY OF THE POLICY. IN THE CORRESPONDENCE AND TELEPHONIC CONVERSATIONS, THE LAW FIRM REQUESTED AND DEMANDED THE CARRIER ASSIGN AN ADJUSTER, REVIEW THE CLAIMS FILE AND INSPECT THE PROPERTY TO FULLY AND PROPERTY ADJUST THE LOSS. UNFORTUNATELY, THE CARRIER HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY DOCUMENTS, PHOTOGRAPHS, ESTIMATES OR ANY COVERAGE OPINION. THE INSURED, THROUGH ITS ATTORNEY, HAS REPEATEDLY REQUESTED THE CARRIER FOR DOCUMENTS WHICH SUPPORT ITS CONTENTION THAT THE DAMAGE WAS CAUSED BY EXCLUSIONS OR EXCEPTIONS OF THE POLICY. AT THIS TIME, THE CARRIER STILL HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY REASON FOR THE CONTINUED CLAIMS DELAY AND TURNED THE RESPONSIBILITY OF ADJUSTING THE LOSS BACK ON ITS OWN INSURED. AT THIS POINT, THE CARRIER HAS REFUSED TO PROPERLY ADJUST THE LOSS AND REFUSES TO COMMUNICATE WITH ITS INSURED THROUGH EITHER FORMAL MEANS OR INFORMAL MEANS. THIS INACTION IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE THAT THE CARRIER HAS REFUSED TO ADJUST THE LOSS BY REFUSING TO ISSUE FULL PAYMENT. THE INSURER’S FEIGNED ATTEMPTS TO ADJUST THE LOSS ARE NOTHING MORE THAN TO WRONGFULLY DENY OR DELAY THIS CLAIM. THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE IN THE HANDLING/ADJUSTMENT OF THE HOMEOWNER’S CLAIM WERE WILLFUL, WANTON, IN BLATANT DISREGARD FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE HOMEOWNERS, AND OCCUR WITH SUCH A FREQUENCY AS TO INDICATE A GENERAL BUSINESS PRACTICE IN VIOLATION OF FLA. STAT. §§ 624.155 AND 626.9541. IN FLORIDA, THE WORK OF ADJUSTING INSURANCE CLAIMS ENGAGES THE PUBLIC TRUST. SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE HAS BREACHED THIS DUTY BY ITS IMPROPER HANDLING OF THE INSURED’S CLAIM OF LOSS. SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE HAS FAILED TO CREATE AND IMPLEMENT ADEQUATE GUIDELINES FOR PROPER INVESTIGATION TO EVALUATE CLAIMS HANDLING AND FOR TRAINING AND SUPERVISION OF EMPLOYEES RESULTING IN STATUTORY VIOLATIONS SET FORTH ABOVE. SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE HAS FAILED AND/OR REFUSED TO THOROUGHLY, ACCURATELY, AND COMPLETELY INVESTIGATE AND EVALUATE THE INSURED’S INSURANCE CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. FLA. STAT. § 624.02 DEFINES INSURANCE AS A CONTRACT WHEREBY ONE UNDERTAKES TO INDEMNIFY ANOTHER OR PAY OR ALLOW SPECIFIED AMOUNT OR A DETERMINABLE BENEFIT UPON DETERMINABLE CONTINGENCIES. INHERENT IS THE FACT THAT PAYMENT MUST BE MADE TIMELY AND PROMPTLY SO THAT THE INSURED MAY MITIGATE HIS/HER DAMAGES AND TO PUT THEM BACK INTO THE POSITION THEY WERE PRIOR TO LOSS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE BREACHED THIS DUTY. THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE IN THE HANDLING OF THE INSURED’S CLAIM WERE WILLFUL, WANTON, AND IN DISREGARD OF THE RIGHTS OF ITS INSURED AND OCCUR WITH SUCH A FREQUENCY AS TO INDICATE A GENERAL BUSINESS PRACTICE, AND ARE IN VIOLATION OF FLA. STAT. §§ 624.155 AND 626.9541. SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE’S ACTIONS AMOUNT TO BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING: 1. FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE A CLAIM 2. FAILURE TO RESPOND TO AN INSURED’S REQUEST TO ADJUST THE LOSS 3. FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE TO AN INSURED AFTER A CLAIM WAS MADE 4. CLAIM DELAY 5. FAILURE TO RENDER A CLAIMS COVERAGE DECISION 6. NOT CONDUCTING FULL AND PROMPT INVESTIGATION 7. FAILING TO PROVIDE REPORTS REQUESTED 8. NOT TREATING POLICYHOLDERS WITH GOOD FAITH CLAIMS CONDUCT 9. NOT ADJUSTING CLAIMS AND EVALUATING LOSSES PROPERLY, PROMPTLY AND FAIRLY TO PROVIDE FULL AND PROMPT INDEMNITY TO THE INSURED 10. FAILING TO IMPLEMENT PROPER STANDARDS FOR THE ADJUSTMENT AND INVESTIGATION OF CLAIMS 11. NOT TRAINING, SUPERVISING OR MANAGING ADJUSTERS PROPERLY SO THAT PROMPT AND FULL PAYMENTS ARE MADE, BUT RATHER PLACING THE COMPANY’S INTERESTS BEFORE THOSE OF THE POLICYHOLDER. 12. FAILING TO OFFER ALL COVERAGES AVAILABLE IN SPITE OF THE CLEAR EVIDENCE OF WINDSTORM AND WATER DAMAGE. THEREFORE, TO CURE THE DEFECTS OUTLINED IN THIS CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE, SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE MUST: (1) ADMIT FULL COVERAGE FOR THE INSURED’S LOSS; (2). TENDER COVERAGE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO DAMAGE TO THE BUILDING STRUCTURE CAUSED BY THE WIND AND WATER DAMAGE IN THE AMOUNT OF $134,266.13. SUBJECT TO DEDUCTIBLE. (3). PAY STATUTORY INTEREST ON THE AMOUNT OF UNPAID CONTRACT DAMAGES FROM THE DATE OF THE LOSS TO THE PRESENT TIME PURSUANT TO F.S. §627.70131, AND PAY REASONABLE COSTS INCURRED. A COPY OF THIS FORM SUBMITTED TO THE FDFS HAS BEEN SENT TO THE FOLLOWING PARTIES, PROVIDING THEM NOTICE OF THE FILING OF THE CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE: SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE ATTN: CLAIMS DEPARTMENT AND ANDREW GREEN PO BOX 105651 ATLANTA, GA 303485651 SENT VIA EMAIL & FAX: Catclaims@securityfirstflorida.com AND Claims@SecurityFirstFlorida.com (386) 301-4774
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
hgonzalez@securityfirstflorida.com 02-27-2025 02/27/2025 Via Electronic Filing: Florida Department of Financial Services Bureau of Consumer Assistance c/o: Civil Remedy Section Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0322 Via Email: John W. Adams 1074 Bloomingdale Ave Valrico, FL 33596 jadams@adamslawassociation.com Re: CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE OF INSURER VIOLATION Filing No.: 806997 Insured: Karen & Roy Randes Insurer: Security First Insurance Company Claim No.: 262635 Policy No.: P015695371 Date of Loss: 10/09/2025 Dear Sir or Madam: This correspondence is in response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (hereinafter referred to as the “CRN”) was filed by John W. Adams on behalf of his client, Karen & Roy Randes (hereinafter referred to as “Insured”). Please be advised that the undersigned represents the interests of Security First Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as “Security First”) with respect to the above-referenced matter. The Florida Department of Financial Services (hereinafter referred to as “Department”) assigned this CRN an acceptance date of 02/14/2025 and DFS File No.: 806997. This matter concerns a property damage claim made by the Insured pursuant to a homeowners’ insurance policy provided by Security First Policy No. P015695371 and assigned Claim No. 262635. As the basis for filing the CRN against Security First, Karen & Roy Randes asserts in the “Reasons for Notice” section violations such as Claim Delay, Unfair Trade Practice, Failure to provide coverage for a covered loss, Failure to investigate claim in consultation with the insured, Failure to issue all payments due and owing, and Failure to address concerns of health and safety at the insured property, along with the following statutory violations: 624.155(1)(b)(1), 626.9541(1)(i)(2), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g), 626.9541(1)(i), 627.70131 – (5)(a), 626.9541(1)(a)(1), . 69B-220.201(3)(B)(2), 69B-220.201(3)(C), 69B-220.201(3)(D), 69B-220.201(3)(E), 69B-220.201(3)(F), and 69B-220.201(3)(G). Security First welcomes this opportunity to respond to the CRN and denies each allegation contained therein. The allegations made in the CRN are premature, as the insured has failed to perfect the claim for bad faith and the CRN does not meet the specificity requirement of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. This CRN does not sufficiently support the allegations stated above. As is standard procedure, upon the first notice of the claim, the subject property was dutifully inspected by an SFIC representative which was documented through photographs. I. Perfecting a Claim for Bad Faith SFIC specifically denies all allegations set forth in the Notice. SFIC contends that the Notice should be rejected and returned by the Department of Financial Services as it is premature. Pursuant to statute, there is no potential violation until a breach of contract is established. § 624.1551, Florida Statutes. Accordingly, any Notice filed prior to a finding that SFIC has breached the terms of the policy, is not ripe and is premature and thus fails to perfect Karen & Roy Randes rights to pursue civil remedies under Florida Statutes. II. Specificity Requirement The Insured’s CRN violates multiple requirements set forth in the Florida courts’ jurisprudence for Civil Remedy Notices. In addition, it fails to meet even the most basic requirements of the Statute. Pursuant to the terms of the statute, (3)(a) As a condition precedent to bringing an action under this section, the department and the authorized insurer must have been given 60 days’ written notice of the violations. Notice to the authorized insurer must be provided by the department to the e-mail address designated by the insurer under s. 624.422. a. The notice shall be on a form provided by the department and shall state with specificity the following information, and such other information as the department may require (emphasis added): b. (3)(a) As a condition precedent to bringing an action under this section, the department and the authorized insurer must have been given 60 days’ written notice of the violations. Notice to the authorized insurer must be provided by the department to the e-mail address designated by the insurer under s. 624.422. i. The statutory provision, including the specific language of the statute, which the authorized insurer allegedly violated. ii. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation. iii. The name of any individual involved in the violation. iv. Reference to specific policy language that is relevant to the violation, if any. If the person bringing the civil action is a third-party claimant, she or he shall not be required to reference the specific policy language if the authorized insurer has not provided a copy of the policy to the third-party claimant pursuant to written request. v. A statement that the notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section. In interpreting this statute, courts have emphasized the importance of filing specific civil remedy notices. The civil remedy notice is “crucial to the procedural integrity of an action” under the Statute. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Clohessy, 32 F.Supp.2d 1328, 1333 (M.D. Fla. 1998). “It is, without a doubt, a condition that must be satisfied in order for one to perfect the right to sue under the statute.” Id. “In creating this statutory remedy for bad- faith actions, the Legislature provided this sixty-day window as a last opportunity for insurers to comply with their claim-handling obligations when a good-faith decision by the insurer would indicate that contractual benefits are owed.” Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 2000). Thus, the Notice cannot be “vague and ‘shotgun’ in nature,” rather than “the type of specific notice required by the statute that would allow [the insurer] an opportunity to cure.” Heritage Corp. of South Florida v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 580 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1299 (S.D. Fla. 2008). Because it is in derogation of the common law, Section 624.155(1)(b), Florida Statutes must be strictly construed. Talat, 753 So. 2d at 1283 (citing Baxter v. Royal Indem. Co., 285 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). To perfect the right to sue under the statute, the insured must specifically notify the insured of any and all alleged violations claimed. Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 952 F.Supp. 773, 776 (M.D. Fla. 1996) (“Talat I”) See Fox v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., No. 8:16-CV-3254-T-23MAP, 2017 WL 1541294, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2017) (sufficiency means specificity). In Junior Julien v. United Property and Casualty Insurance Company, 311 So.3d 875, 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021), the Honorable Court stated: The Middle District of Florida was confronted with a civil remedy notice that was similarly broad in scope and concluded that listing nearly all policy provisions on the notice did not satisfy the statute. Fox v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., No. 8:16-CV-3254-T-23MAP, 2017 WL 1541294, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2017). The court explained that “[i]f the statute contained no specificity requirement, [then] the [insureds’] casual ‘reference’ to the entire insurance policy undoubtedly would suffice.” Id. But, the court continued, “the Legislature included ‘specific’ or a variant not once but twice in the statute.” Id. As a result, the insureds’ listing of whole sections of the insurance policy “appear[ed] to lack specificity.” Id. In Valenti, the District Court for the Middle District of Florida considered the practical consequences of an insured’s non-specific civil remedy notice. Valenti v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America, 2006 WL 1627276 (M.D. Fla. 2006). The plaintiff’s civil remedy notice included allegations that the defendant conducted an inadequate investigation. The plaintiff, however, failed to identify with the requisite specificity the defendant’s actions that were inadequate. The Middle District held that the plaintiff’s civil remedy notice was insufficient, and stated the following: [T]he civil remedy notice must be specific enough to provide insurers notice of the wrongdoing so the insurer can cure the same within sixty days. … Plaintiffs’ counsel, during the hearing in this matter, argued a civil remedy notice that states “you denied my claim” should be sufficient to place the insurer on notice of what was needed to be cured. Plaintiffs’ counsel further argued that it was up to the insurer, as the insurance expert, to decipher what actions needed to be cured. This argument, in this Court's estimation, is illogical and is counter to the purpose of the civil remedy notice. If a simple “you denied my claim” was sufficient to put insurers on notice, the sixty-day cure period would be little more than a guessing game with the insurer attempting to correctly guess what errors the insured claimed it made in the claims handling process, or risk defending a bad faith action. This surely is not what the legislature had in mind when it created the civil remedy notice. Accordingly, this Court finds that Plaintiffs allegation that Defendant failed to conduct an adequate investigation is insufficient to provide Defendant an opportunity to cure. Id. at *2. The guidance for an insured could not be more clear. “The purpose of the civil remedy notice is to give the insurer one last chance to settle a claim with its insured and avoid unnecessary bad faith litigation.” Lane v. Westfield Insurance Co., 862 So. 2d 774, 779 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Its purpose is not “to give the insured a right of action to proceed against the insurer even after the insured’s claim has been paid or resolved.” Id. Ultimately, conclusory allegations without facts fail to perfect a statutory bad faith claim. Merely alleging the bare minimum allegations is insufficient pursuant to Florida courts’ interpretations of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. III. Conclusion At all times, Security First has acted in good faith in its handling of the claim and it has acted fairly, honestly, and with due regard for the Insured’s interest and in determining obligations to Insured. Specifically, Security First has complied with its obligations under the applicable Florida Statutes and the applicable Security First Insurance policy. Security First specifically denies any claim for bad faith and argues that the insured’s claim for bad faith is premature. Security First continues to reserve all its rights under the policy, at law and in equity. Regardless, Insured’s conclusory allegations fail to place Security First on notice of any purported violations. Furthermore, the Civil Remedy Notice fails to identify how to cure the allegations set forth. The allegations are without basis. It is clear Security First properly handled and adequately investigated the claim. We hope that this response has answered any concerns regarding this matter. If the Department has any question concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Hector Gonzalez P177123 Security First Insurance Company 1001 Broadway Avenue Ormond Beach, Florida 32714 catclaims@securityfirstflorida.com Telephone Number: 877-333-9992
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