Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     807561
Filing Accepted:  2/19/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
ST ARMANDS PLACE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC   First Name  
Street Address * 254 S. POLK DRIVE AND 266 S. POLK DRIVE
City, State Zip * SARASOTA, FL 34236
Email Address * STOGSTWO@YAHOO.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   ST ARMANDS PLACE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC   First Name  
Policy # * 4747720967 Claim #* 05000002871
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* WATKINS First Name * MATTHEW Initial
Street Address* 1112 GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD, SUITE 204
City, State Zip* NAPLES , FLORIDA 34102
Email Address * MATT@VWFLEGAL.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   FRONTLINE INSURANCE UNLIMITED COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10074
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* UNKNOWN
Type of Insurance * Commercial 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.
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.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Building Coverages – including Loss Settlement and Loss Payment Provisions         CAUSES OF LOSS - SPECIAL FORM A. 1. Covered Property 3. Covered Causes Of Loss FLORIDA CHANGES ENDORSEMENTS WATER EXCLUSION ENDORSEMENT  EXCLUSION OF COSMETIC DAMAGE TO ROOF SURFACING CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION COVERAGE FORM
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

In addition to the statutory violations referenced above and as set forth in detail hereafter, the Insured state that this carrier violated the following Florida Administrative Code Sections:         69B-220.201(3)(b) An adjuster shall treat all claims equally. An adjuster shall not provide favored treatment to any claimant. Adjusters shall adjust all claims strictly in accordance with the insurance contract.         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)(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)(m) An adjuster shall not knowingly fail to advise a claimant of their rights in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract and of the applicable laws of this state.                  In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. This Insurance Company has breached the public’s trust by its improper adjustment of the Insured claim of loss.         As a preliminary matter, it must be asserted that the following Civil Remedies Notice (“CRN”) is being submitted by the undersigned on behalf of the Insured based upon current knowledge, information, and belief. However, due to the lack of any meaningful and good faith disclosures by this carrier as of this date, particularly as it relates to critical issues of causation, investigation, and damages (which is part of this carrier’s pattern and practice in connection with its claims handling) the Insured cannot presently be expected to recite all facts giving rise to these claims nor the nature and extent of all statutory violations set forth hereinafter. Therefore, subject to the foregoing, the following is set forth.          Frontline Insurance Unlimited (referred to herein as “FRONTLINE” the “insurer”, or the “carrier”), Policy No. 4747720967 (the “Policy”), and its assigned claim number 05000002871, has failed to create and implement adequate guidelines for the proper investigation and evaluation of claims, claims handling, and for training and supervising employees, resulting in statutory violations, as set forth above. As is set forth hereafter, among other wrongs, considering the vicissitudes experienced by the Insured, this carrier has failed and refused to thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigate, evaluate, and adjust the Insured insurance claims for damages in good faith.           This claim concerns the Insured’s well-maintained condominium association located at 254 S. Polk Drive and 266 S. Polk Drive, Sarasota, FL 34236, which sustained significant, insidious, and progressive damages, particularly (but not limited to) the roofing and air conditioning systems, interior, appurtenances and contents, from the effects of a purportedly insured wind event, Hurricane Milton (“Milton” or the “hurricane”) on or about October 9, 2024. All damages were documented in detail and reliably found to be due to the devastating effects of this purportedly insured event, of a progressive and serious nature, and all while the Policy was in full force and effect. Some of the damages are obviously ongoing, so the Insured is submitting this CRN with the expectation that additional damages are likely to be discovered, and additional/supplemental claims made, and thus the Insured expressly reserve the right to supplement.          Coverage for reported damage was opened and extended for some, but denied and undervalued for the vast majority of the damages sustained by the Insured, by FRONTLINE and its designated adjusters/agents, including but not limited to Montie Smith, “Senior Commercial Claims Adjuster”, Jimmie Williams of TruClaim, LLC, and Keystone Experts and Engineers, LLC, all far from fair and independent in their duties. According to FRONTLINE, in a letter dated January 7, 2025, referencing the results of inspections conducted by these individuals, the net allowable payments, following application and deductions of Replacement Cost Values and Policy deductibles, were $0.00 for 254 S. Polk, $0.00 for 266 S. Polk, and $10,000.00 for Outdoor Property/Fencing. A variety of excuses were provided and citations to alleged Policy exclusions were noted in support thereof, which included “cosmetic” exclusion and uncovered “flood” related damages. This is a tactic frequently utilized when an insurance carrier does not want to honor their obligations – find Policy exclusions and manufacture the facts fit those exclusions, with the net effect being little or no money. True to form, that happened here. And, to add further insult, additional Policy defenses were reserved” by FRONTLINE and the Insured was warned that it was incumbent upon it to protect and preserve the property, without the payment of money, under yet another Policy provision. This low-ball evaluation was confirmed, on numerous occasions by FRONTLINE, and was and is inexcusable. However, it was disclosed that FRONTLINE also employed the services of not only its own people to inspect the property, which was only a formality, because whenever third-party inspectors retained by FRONTLINE are involved, the results are draconian and largely predetermined. This case proved to be no different and only varied from the norm because of the minimal payment extended, before the hammer fell, as will be discussed hereinafter. Many other details and supporting documentation were not provided, also per custom and practice of FRONTLINE, and it has become obvious that the entire purpose of this claims handling process was hope that the Insured would critically scrutinize the nuances of an insurance policy and were not sophisticated enough to ask for the withheld documentation; however, in this case, FRONTLINE underestimated the resolve of the Insured, as it will take a high wire performance by FRONTLINE to escape its obligations here. Obviously, full disclosure of many facts by is not a strong suit of FRONTLINE. Shocking to some, but not to those familiar with how insurance carriers and their minions operate. The message was clear to the Insured, accept our word as to allowable coverage amounts, as unilaterally opined by FRONTLINE, or “go away” based merely upon the reasons and opinions of people which FRONTLINE mostly chooses not to disclose and not to reconsider. Here, there are many wrongs, which will be developed in greater detail in what promises to be almost certain litigation. Low balling a claim (here claims) is one thing, almost to be expected by this carrier, but denying coverage to a loyal and high value insured on this set of facts is intolerable. To summarize, and as will be obvious from a review of the matters asserted herein, all which can be reasonably ascertained to date was that FRONTLINE and its loyal minions likely recognized this as a valid and fully covered claim for which they did not want to pay, no matter what the facts, no matter what the law, no matter what the evidence, and no matter what the terms of the Policy fairly indicated. FRONTLINE expects the Insured to run through the unfamiliar and frustrating gauntlet of the claim handling/adjustment process. Then, in the unlikely event that the Insured somehow survives, force them to run through another frustrating and delaying process, the legal system gauntlet, which can be equally or even more frustrating. As appears from the evidence in this case, the Insured has been presented with unreasonable delays in the rightful adjustment of these claims and no sums of money commensurate with their loss.         This was a serious lack of fair evaluation and an equal lack of full candor for all open and obvious losses, but this claim handling is wholly consistent with FRONTLINE’s sordid pattern and practice of abandoning policyholders. Such abandonment occurs particularly in a time of great need, as here, as the property(s) are now vulnerable to further damage due to the state of disrepair, for which the Insured is advised they must now accept sole responsibility. The basis for these findings lies in poorly detailed inspections by “go to” individuals, with “go to” hackneyed findings, with little or no supporting objective evidence and data, with little or no experience in evaluating Florida claims, and most likely in unilaterally and broadly applying Policy exclusions, similarly without data and explanations, in a manner to solely benefit FRONTLINE’s financial interests. Lack of details coupled with a lack of a fair offer based upon an unfair evaluation by biased persons employed by biased insurance carriers are prime exemplars of insurance carrier bad faith. This inexcusable, presaged result was in large part based upon the sadly predictable findings bought and paid for by FRONTLINE and further relying upon what are believed to be the shifting sands of certain vague and ethereal Policy provisions and exclusions, as unilaterally applied, and unilaterally interpreted by the many sycophantic agents employed by FRONTLINE. This situation persists to the date of the filing hereof and necessitates this action in the fervent but unrequited hope that FRONTLINE will somehow, in this case, be fair, put aside its own financial interests and be persuaded to meet its contractual and legal responsibilities to the Insured to return the insured property to the condition it was in prior to this event. After all, that is the law but, just like the facts, even the law is challenged by FRONTLINE when it means full and fair payment.          FRONTLINE obviously expects everyone to ignore the evidence and obvious damages and trust its unidentified and unidentified “experts”. Such onerous conduct by FRONTLINE is contrary to the law, but is invoked by this carrier, with regularity and unabashed impunity, and with little or no regard for the consequences, as it suits their purposes, albeit temporarily. The discrepancy between these conclusions and the conclusions, documentation, and the conclusions and estimates cogently presented by the Insured, as discussed later, will certainly be attempted to be explained by FRONTLINE as an “honest difference in causation and evaluation”, a trite phrase which seems to only live up to half of its billing. Indeed, there is a difference, a significant difference, but there will also eventually have to be an explanation as to why the “honest” difference always seems to benefit this insurance carrier, as documentation and statistics obtained in discovery will undoubtedly demonstrate, as well as explain why their unilateral interpretation and selective application of Policy terms and exclusions by persons whom are frequently retained by and financially beholden to FRONTLINE, likewise always benefits FRONTLINE. The alternatives available to the Insured were few, surrender, or arrange to have an independent, competent valuation of their losses, both as to the critical issues of causation and damages, by truly fair and highly respected teams of damage estimate and repair professionals, not beholden to FRONTLINE, but rather beholden to professional standards and true costs, familiar with scope of damage, repairs, and pricing in the vicinity. As a result, Corbitt Public Adjusting, Inc. and its experienced and highly respected representatives, were called upon to fully and fairly evaluate the damage and it was found, in pertinent part, that the damage was much more severe than FRONTLINE would have anyone believe. In a detailed, professionally rendered damage estimate, including a line-item summary of findings with many supporting photographs, all provided to FRONTLINE, it was opined that it would require at least $488,936.66 (RCV) and/or $474,985.08 (ACV) to return the property(s) to its pre-loss condition, as required by Policy and Florida law, an amount significantly higher than the FRONTLINE evaluation; however, if this estimated amount is found to be in need of revision, FRONTLINE will be so advised.         FRONTLINE wrongfully expected the Insured to trust their handling of these claims, and to honor their contractual duties, but that inexplicable lack of common courtesy, lack of detail and lack of honest damage evaluation has resulted in just the opposite, a lack of trust, which has only festered over the passage of time, primarily due to FRONTLINE’s refusal to reconsider its biased position and fairly and fully evaluate the totality and fair value of these claims The Insured has been provided with a dismissal of legitimate claims, in other words, the bum’s rush. A bad faith approach to the handling of these claims by FRONTLINE was substituted for fairness, a policy which was not befitting an insurance carrier holding itself out to the public as a fair and honest broker, and based not upon a fair evaluation of the damages, but rather based upon a result-oriented, skewed claims handling process, unquestionably designed to take advantage of the superior economic and bargaining position of this carrier.         FRONTLINE’s statements and representations to its Insured, aided and abetted by their agents, that the loss was not fully covered, are violations of the Coverages, Loss Settlement and Loss Payment Provisions, as well as the provisions of the Policy that provide policy limits coverage for damage such as this. This was a fully covered and timely reported loss. FRONTLINE is contractually obligated to pay, yet they refuse to fully acknowledge their obligations. As in so many cases involving FRONTLINE, they repeatedly take this approach, in a systematic and concerted effort to induce the Insured to abandon these claims or accept their pittance of an offer. But that will not work here, as the withing legal counsel has been retained. These acts are a violation of Florida Statutes 626.9541 (1)(i)(3)(b) and (1)(i)(2).          FRONTLINE’s “coverage evaluation”, such as it was, will not return the subject property(s) to its pre-loss condition as required under the Policy and Florida law. It used adjusters and unknown others assigned to this claim, practiced in the art of deception who did not adjust and treat all claims equally and in so doing utilized unacceptable, scientifically unreliable and parsimonious standards. This unfair treatment is shown by the total unwillingness to fairly investigate the totality of the Insured claims. Instead of paying what the Insured is rightfully owed, fair and full damages for many obvious losses, as required, FRONTLINE continues to take steps to delay the handling and adjustment of the Insured’s claims, and require the Insured to unnecessarily incur out-of-pocket costs, retain legal counsel and wait for the legal system to slowly grind to a conclusion, in what appears to be a concerted attempt to frustrate the Insured and delay, deny, defer, and/or decrease the value of the Insured claims.         The adjusters assigned to this claim have a duty to adjust and treat all claims equally. Since the beginning of this claim, the representatives acting on behalf of FRONTLINE have approached this investigation in a manner highly prejudicial to the Insured. FRONTLINE has placed its financial interests above the interests of its Insured, which conduct is the centerpiece of its claims handling strategy. The Insured fully cooperated with FRONTLINE in all respects but when it came time for this insurance company to step up to its duties, and exercise its reciprocal duties to its policyholder, FRONTLINE instead stepped its responsibilities and ignored and failed the Insured miserably. By refusing to acknowledge full coverage and provide prompt, full payment in violation of the Policy’s Loss Settlement and Loss Payment provisions as detailed above, FRONTLINE has shown that it has abdicated its Policy responsibilities and failed to implement standards for the proper investigation of a claim in violation of Florida Statute 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a).         This may sound familiar: a carrier and its adjusters and others working on its behalf have been known to arrange for “creative” reports and estimates for the purpose of being able to deny and/or underpay insurance claims related to damage as well as arrange for creative ways to delay payment of rightful amounts due to Insured. FRONTLINE, like many other insurance carriers “skilled” in the art of deception, will also certainly retain a small army of highly compensated defense lawyers and expert witnesses to defend what should not, in the exercise of good faith, be defended. This carrier also knows that, when a severe insured event occurs, even an event causing obvious, widespread damage to a particular area ravaged by a hurricane, not every policyholder will submit a claim for coverage, even if the insured is entitled to coverage under the terms of the policy. FRONTLINE also knows that, and plays the odds to its considerable advantage, as even when a covered event occurs, and the policyholder submits the claim, many individuals will be unable to assess whether this carrier undervalued the full extent of the damage, as here. And, if FRONTLINE wrongfully denies full coverage, as here, this carrier knows that many an insured will not turn to litigation to enforce their rights under a policy, most of whom have little to no experience negotiating (let alone litigating) against insurers. Worse yet, a few recent misguided victories by insurance carriers in litigating these cases have only served to embolden this conduct and exacerbate their unfair and bad faith claims handling. As the Florida Supreme Court has noted, “the average policyholder has neither the finances nor the expertise to single-handedly take on an insurance carrier.” Johnson v. UPC Ins. Co., 200 So. 3d 1207, 1215 (Fla. 2016). This case, and others which have resulted in large verdicts not only for indemnity but also for bad faith conduct, should serve as a cautionary tale to FRONTLINE, as well as a strong message to recognize its exposure and fully resolve this matter promptly and in good faith.          Pursuant to the scheme utilized by this carrier, when one of its Insured submits a claim for coverage related to a purportedly covered event, a field adjuster or forensic engineer (typically unnamed or only partially named, as here) is assigned to visit the property. These individuals are likely unfamiliar with, or indifferent to, the pricing in this area and are charged with generating insurance carrier friendly reports and/or creating estimates and/or making coverage determinations and valuations of the respective losses reported by an insured. Instead of ensuring that honest, accurate reports are generated to confirm that an insured receives an assessment that reflected the true losses, this carrier specifically instructed desk adjusters and forensic people to modify the reports and estimates created by field adjusters to deny coverage and/or decrease estimates to ultimately decrease the amount of money FRONTLINE pays. This can fairly be characterized as a pattern and practice of outright denial or de facto denial of claims, and well below true loss value, as here, resulting in the unstated goal of FRONTLINE: little or no money due to an insured. This carrier also has been known to instruct their minions to modify reports to provide a “factual basis” to deny coverage altogether. and pressure adjusters to create factual bases that were false and misleading to deny claims. As this scheme has come to light, some field adjusters for some carriers have had an unexpected attack of honesty, and subsequently were demeaned and have even been “black balled”, when they stated, both off the record and under oath, that some carriers have not so subtly pressured or tacitly encouraged them to add language to their reports which eventually proved to be inaccurate or outright false.         After this purportedly insured event, well-maintained properties, insured in consideration of the payment of exceptionally high premiums, and previously in good repair, and each aspect of the property well within, if not on the low end, of its overall life expectancy, has many areas of visible, extensive damage, plus some inevitable latent damage, resulting in significant repair. But there was no fair investigation and no full payment of money from the carrier, which purportedly insured the property for just such a vicissitude and contingency. FRONTLINE now attempts to save money by not paying full value for these losses, not paying full policy limits in spite of the fact that policy limits are due, all of which are part of a pattern and practice which likely works a large percentage of the time in connection with these cases. If FRONTLINE did not want to fully pay for a loss it should not have written the Policy. Insurance coverage means nothing if premiums are taken in and claims are not paid out, a tactic which has consequences. It is a calculated and unfair claims practice of FRONTLINE to act in this manner and, accordingly, are violations of Florida Statute 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i).         FRONTLINE’s opportunistic conduct in the face of the great need of its Insured here and its handling of this claim was facially biased from start to finish – for now, as it is obvious that they will only pay a fair amount when compelled to do so through the legal process, so this filing is the first step in that necessary process. The acts giving rise to this violation have occurred with such frequency and regularity by FRONTLINE so as not to be an aberration. A carrier assumes the risk in consideration of handsome premiums and high deductibles. Post policy underwriting by the carrier, as exists here, is prohibited by law but it is also unfortunately the norm, particularly as practiced by FRONTLINE. Unfortunately, this effete and onerous conduct is deliberately calculated to frustrate the Insured in the hope that, as exists in so many claims, the Insured would be intimidated by a seemingly omnipotent insurance carrier. Now, the filing of this CRN is the first step in leveling the playing field.           FRONTLINE was obligated to make its coverage determinations based upon reasonable explanations and reasonable investigations. The denying the full value of this loss when it was fully covered and should have been paid was not reasonable and was not the result of a reasonable investigation. As such, FRONTLINE has violated these statutes. A fair and reasonable investigation would have found that the full damage to the property(s), as claimed and documented by the Insured and its own, qualified experts, was caused by Milton, and was covered, and the result of a reasonable investigation would have been to provide full coverage and prompt payment to the Insured, without invoking inapplicable and unenforceable policy defenses. These acts are violations of Florida Statutes 626.9541(1)(i)(2) and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a).         The concept of insurance is that an insurer will investigate and timely and promptly provide indemnity or security against a contingent loss. Florida Statute 624.02 defines "insurance" as a contract whereby one-party insurer undertakes to indemnify another or pay or allow a specified amount or a determinable benefit upon determinable contingencies. Inherent in that definition is the fact that payment must be made timely and promptly so that the insured may mitigate damages and be put back into the position they were in prior to the loss as quickly as possible, not get dragged through the interminable, agonizing, and highly frustrating FRONTLINE claims denial process.          SUMMARY OF STATUTORY VIOLATIONS:         The statutory violations here, based upon present available information, which is unfortunately scarce due to lack of disclosure by this insurance carrier, are many and varied and have occurred simultaneously and concurrently, generally serve as an unfortunate, devious model for insurer unfair claims practices, and they include but are not limited to the following:         This intentional, willful, wanton, and malicious conduct referenced above is a clear violation of multiple Florida Statutes, including but not limited to 624.155(1)(b)(1), and shows that the carrier did not attempt in good faith to settle the Insured claim(s) when, under all the circumstances, it could have and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its Insured and with due regard for the Insured’s interests. The carrier’s refusal and/or failure to settle the full value of the claim when under all circumstances it could have and should have done so had it acted fairly and honestly toward the Insured is wrongful conduct. This insurer’s illusory bargain and subsequent acceptance of payment for a policy for which Insured cannot recover from during this policy period to date, amounts to an unfair and deceptive trade practice as, at a minimum, it is a misrepresentation of the benefits, advantages, conditions of terms of any insurance policy.          FRONTLINE’s conduct and express and implied statements and representations to its Insured that the loss was not fully covered, without the responsibility of conducting a fair and impartial property inspection, as detailed above, and particularly in invoking policy provisions which are neither applicable nor enforceable, are in violation of the Loss Settlement and Loss Payment Provisions, as well as the provisions of the Policy that facially provide coverage for damage. This was a fully covered loss. FRONTLINE is obligated to pay, yet they refuse to fully acknowledge their obligations. FRONTLINE repeatedly misstates and misrepresents the facts and circumstances of this loss in a concerted and conflicted effort to induce the Insured to accept less money than FRONTLINE is obligated to pay under the Policy or to abandon these claims. These acts are a violation of Florida Statutes 626.9541 (1)(i)(3)(b) and (1)(i)(2).          By relying upon a result oriented, biased and out of touch evaluation, with no relevant principles, details, methods, or measurements, and by refusing to acknowledge coverage and provide prompt and full payment in violation of the Policy’s Loss Settlement and Loss Payment provisions as detailed above, FRONTLINE has shown that it has failed to implement standards for the proper investigation of a claim in violation of Florida Statute 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a).         FRONTLINE was obligated to make its coverage determinations based upon reasonable explanations and reasonable investigations. This did not happen. As such, FRONTLINE has violated these statutes. A reasonable investigation would have found that the damage to the insured property was fully covered, and the result of a reasonable investigation would have been to provide coverage and prompt, full payment, which FRONTLINE has not done. These acts are violations of Florida Statutes 626.9541and (1)(i)(3)(a).         The totality of the actions, inactions, obfuscations, and insurer misconduct as set forth above are material misrepresentations to its Insured constitutes unfair claims practices. Further, these actions and omissions by FRONTLINE concurrently violate many, if not all, of the Florida Statutes referenced and are intentionally designed to lead to this ill-conceived and intended result. It is unfair for FRONTLINE to low-ball (or effectively “no-ball”) a loss that is fully covered based upon only partially disclosed or undisclosed information that are not supported by the facts, misstate other facts with the intent of effecting settlement of such claims, loss, or damage under such contract or policy on less favorable terms than those specified in, and contemplated by such contract or policy, to wrongfully invoke Policy exclusions which do not apply, are in violation of Florida Statute 626.9541(1)(i), set forth below: 626.9541(1)(i)   Unfair claim settlement practices –         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 specified in, and contemplated by such contract or policy; This insurance company clearly misrepresented the extent of the damage it discovered in its inspection of the insured’s property with the intent of effecting a settlement on less favorable terms than those specified in the applicable insurance contract.                 THEREFORE:  This insurance carrier, “FRONTLINE”, must:         (1) create and implement adequate guidelines for the proper investigation and evaluation of these types of claims and for the training and supervision of employees, which will avoid future statutory violations.         (2) create and implement adequate guidelines for the proper investigation and evaluation of these type of claims and for the training and supervision of employees in connection with legitimate claims to ensure that the claims handling procedures are adequate to prevent other Insured from being treated unfairly and wrongfully; and         (3) immediately tender all undisputed insurance proceeds to the Insured while continuing to adjust the loss with the Insured in accordance with Florida law, including but not limited to honoring their reciprocal duties and agreement to abide by all Policy terms; and         (4)  tender to the Insured all amounts representing all damages, plus monies due for other coverages, incidental and consequential damages, all monies due and/or paid for remedial or temporary repairs, and less any prior payments other than noted herein, applicable depreciation, and deductibles; and         (5)  pay interest on untimely payments from the date the carrier was notified of the loss or, upon the election of the Insured, pay such other interest payments as may be available under Florida law, including prejudgment interest; and         (6)  pay all attorney’s fees and costs; and  (7) pay the present total, pre-suit indemnity demand of $488,936.66, less the applicable deductibles and prior payment, along with any applicable depreciation to be withheld until due and owing under the subject policy; and        (8)  exercise good faith efforts to resolve these claim(s) by acting fairly and honestly toward the Insured and with due regard for the Insured interests in disclosing all evidence which supports their position, and in attempting to fully settle the entirety of its Insured claim(s).
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
hzelinger@bressler.com 04-10-2025 Dear Mr. Watkins: Please accept this response on behalf of Frontline Insurance Unlimited Company (hereinafter “Frontline”) to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (hereinafter “CRN”) No. 807561, filed on behalf of St Armands Place Condominium Association Inc (hereinafter, the “Complainant” or the “Insured”), and accepted by the Florida Department of Financial Services on February 19, 2025. The CRN alleges that Frontline violated the following statutes: • 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. Please accept this as Frontline’s response to the above-referenced CRN filed with the Department of Financial Services by the Complainant, St Armands Place Condominium Association Inc. To summarize the below, Frontline hereby denies any allegation of not attempting to settle claims in good faith when it could and should have done so; making a material misrepresentation made to an insured or any other person having an interest in the proceeds payable under such contract or policy; failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims; and misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue; and states that it has at all times handled and adjusted the Complainant’s claim with utmost good faith. Simply put, Frontline denies any acts or omission that could be construed or found to be deemed bad faith and/or a violation of Florida Statutes § 624.155 and § 626.9541, whether expressly stated in the Civil Remedy Notice or implied. Any and all allegations of bad faith are hereby denied and rejected in their entirety by Frontline. Frontline denies and rejects the instant CRN as it fails to comply with the requirements of Florida Statute § 624.155. The CRN is therefore deficient and fails to preserve any and all claims for statutory bad faith under Florida Law. Florida Statute § 624.155 requires a complainant to file with the Department of Financial Services a Civil Remedy Notice which shall be “on a form provided by the [Department] and shall state with specificity…such other information as the Department may require.” The Department created a CRN form, Form DFS-10-363, which lays out 15 requirements, including in part, the complainant’s e-mail address, complainant type, claim number, attorney’s name, attorney’s address, attorney’s e-mail address, type of insurer, the person with knowledge of the facts giving rise to the allegations, and the reason for notice. According to § 624.155, these mandates are required by the Department, and they must be stated with specificity. The instant CRN fails to provide the specificity required by § 624.155 and fails to comply with the form requirements as a whole. Therefore, the instant CRN is facially deficient. See Bay v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, No. 4D19-3332, 2020 WL 6154256 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct. 21, 2020). Specifically, the instant CRN filing provides “UNKNOWN” as the “person or persons representing the insurer who are most responsible for/knowledgeable of the facts giving rise to the allegations in this notice.” Since the claim was opened on October 25, 2024, Claims Adjusters Montie Smith and Brichelle Humphrey have sent several correspondence to the insured Complainant and/or their representatives on behalf of Frontline, including but not limited to a Reservation of Rights and Request for Information Letter dated December 19, 2024, a Coverage Determination Letter dated January 7, 2025, and a Sworn Proof of Loss Response Letter on February 19, 2025. Whether the Complainant misread the prompt or simply dismissed what the Department had requested and failed to include any of the various people who have assisted with their claim, the Complainants’ failure to comply with the requisite baseline form requirements is insufficient under Florida law to support any action for bad faith against Frontline without speculation on its part. Due to this intentional withholding of mandated information, the CRN is facially deficient as it fails to comply with the form requirements set forth in Florida Statute §624.155, and specifically § 624.155(3)(b)(3). See Bay v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, No. 4D19-3332, 2020 WL 6154256 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct. 21, 2020). Furthermore, the CRN’s attempt to identify the specific policy language relevant to the violation is woefully deficient. When prompted to reference the policy language that is relevant to the alleged violation, the Complainant made absolutely no effort to provide relevant policy language. Instead, the Complainant provided the titles of several sections located within the policy, without including their definitions nor any context as to why they’re relevant to the instant CRN or any of the allegations alleged against Frontline. The Complainants listed “Building Coverages – including Loss Settlement and Loss Payment Provisions” and “Causes of Loss – Special Form” and “Florida Changes Endorsements” amongst other sections within the policy. These sections listed are relevant to any and every claim for insurance benefits, and the Complainants again provided no context nor any specific policy language that’s relevant to their claim or their contentions against Frontline. The Complainant entirely failed respond to the Department’s prompt, again dismissing the mandated information needed to submit a valid CRN against an insurer. Accordingly, the CRN 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 Florida Statute § 624.155. Julien v. United Property & Casualty Insurance Company No. 4D19-2763 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020). Failure to provide specific reference to any relevant policy language is direct and clear noncompliance with the requirements of Florida Statute § 624.155, and therefore renders the CRN deficient on its face as to form and substance. For these reasons alone, the CRN fails at its inception. Additionally, the CRN fails to provide a complete description relating to the facts and/or circumstances which give rise to the alleged statutory violations, and instead makes a series of blanket allegations attacking the fairness of Frontline’s claim handling process, made without one scintilla of factual evidence in support of any of such claims. Consequently, Frontline is prevented from providing any meaningful or complete response. In summary, the CRN is hardly more than a recitation of a number of Florida statutory provisions, with minimal factual allegations in support of the conclusory statutory recitations. A Civil Remedy Notice must state the facts and circumstances that give rise to an alleged violation with specificity sufficient to allow an insurer to cure the alleged violation within the sixty-day statutory period. Lane v. Westfield Insurance Company, 862 So.2d 774 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). The instant CRN therefore fails to comply with the requirements of Florida Statute § 624.155(3), which requires that a CRN of insurer violation “state with specificity,” inter alia, the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation and the “specific” language of the subject insurance policy that is relevant to the violation. The CRN fails to specify what was lacking in Frontline’s investigation and fails to specify facts which support that its investigation was unfair or merits additional steps. To Frontline’s knowledge, the instant claim for insurance benefits has been evaluated and/or adjusted properly. The CRN further lacks any specificity, facts, or rationale which indicate that Frontline’s coverage determination should have been different. Generally, the CRN lacks the requisite facts and/or specificity, as ruled on numerous times and cited to throughout this response, to put Frontline on notice as to the allegations against it. Moreover, the few facts that are stated in the CRN are contrary to the facts of the underlying claim or are at best misleading. The CRN states that Frontline engaged in a tactic “frequently utilized when an insurance carrier does not want to honor their obligations – find Policy exclusions and manufacture the facts to fit those exclusions, with the net effect being little or no money.” These are serious blanket allegations made without one scintilla of factual evidence in support of any of such claims. This allegation ignores that the application of policy exclusions is a necessary part of the claim evaluation. The partial coverage of claims was based on objective analysis of the policy terms and documented inspection findings, and not on any effort to deny coverage unjustly. Claim evaluations vary based on damage assessments, policy terms, and specific circumstances. The suggestion that Frontline does not want to honor their obligations under the policy ignores the fact that Frontline has made claim payments when warranted, including the $10,000.00 for outdoor property issued on January 13, 2025. Throughout the handling of the subject claim, Frontline has actively engaged in open communication with the insured Complainants and their representative(s) and has acted based upon the facts and according to the terms of the insurance contract which provides rights to both the Complainants as well as the insurer for scenarios just like this one. The subject CRN makes egregious and baseless allegations that “Frontline also employed the services of not only its own people to inspect the property, which was only a formality, because whenever third-party inspectors retained by Frontline are involved, the results are draconian and largely predetermined.” This statement is misleading because it presumes without any evidence that Frontline’s third-party experts were biased or that their conclusions were predetermined. Frontline retained qualified, independent experts with relevant experience, and their conclusions were based on thorough inspections, unbiased analysis, and industry standards. The CRN makes another unsubstantiated attack on the third-party experts brought in by Frontline where it states: “The basis for these findings lies in poorly detailed inspections by ‘go to’ individuals, with ‘go to’ hackneyed findings, with little or no supporting objective evidence and data, with little or no experience in evaluating Florida claims.” The CRN continues to say “Frontline obviously expects everyone to ignore the evidence and obvious damages and trust its unidentified and unidentified ‘experts’.” This is demonstrably false. The engineers and adjusters engaged by Frontline, including Keystone Experts and Engineers, LLC, are licensed and qualified professionals with experience in assessing storm-related damages in Florida. Their reports were based on industry-accepted methodologies and supported by photographs, measurements, and material testing where applicable. Further, the experts were identified and even provided their curriculum vitae in their report which reflects 18 years of progressive experience in structural engineering, inspection, construction, and failure analysis, in addition to extensive experience in assessing storm related damages. The other expert engaged by Frontline was TruClaim, who had Executive Building Consultant Jimmy Williams inspect the property on December 18, 2024, and submit a report peer reviewed by Loss Consultant Don Young. The Complainants have provided no facts or evidence to support their allegations in support of the instant CRN or in any other context throughout the entirety of their claim. The facts outlined above show that Frontline promptly and thoroughly investigated the subject claim and has acted in good faith based upon its understanding of the facts. Furthermore, the Complainants’ cure demand is indiscernible and as such Frontline is not given a fair opportunity to cure the CRN. The CRN states that in order to cure the CRN, the insurer, “Frontline,” must: (1) create and implement adequate guidelines for the proper investigation and evaluation of these types of claims and for the training and supervision of employees, which will avoid future statutory violations. (2) create and implement adequate guidelines for the proper investigation and evaluation of these type of claims and for the training and supervision of employees in connection with legitimate claims to ensure that the claims handling procedures are adequate to prevent other Insured from being treated unfairly and wrongfully; and (3) immediately tender all undisputed insurance proceeds to the Insured while continuing to adjust the loss with the Insured in accordance with Florida law, including but not limited to honoring their reciprocal duties and agreement to abide by all Policy terms; and (4) tender to the Insured all amounts representing all damages, plus monies due for other coverages, incidental and consequential damages, all monies due and/or paid for remedial or temporary repairs, and less any prior payments other than noted herein, applicable depreciation, and deductibles; and (5) pay interest on untimely payments from the date the carrier was notified of the loss or, upon the election of the Insured, pay such other interest payments as may be available under Florida law, including prejudgment interest; and (6) pay all attorney’s fees and costs; and (7) pay the present total, pre-suit indemnity demand of $488,936.66, less the applicable deductibles and prior payment, along with any applicable depreciation to be withheld until due and owing under the subject policy; and (8) exercise good faith efforts to resolve these claim(s) by acting fairly and honestly toward the Insured and with due regard for the Insured interests in disclosing all evidence which supports their position, and in attempting to fully settle the entirety of its Insured claim(s). This is the functional equivalent of “Pay me everything I’ve asked for.” Rousso v. Liberty Surplis Ins. Co., 2010 WL 736059, *5 (S.D. Fla. 2010). “Insurers are not required to pay any amount demanded by their insureds to avoid a bad-faith claim.” Id. (citing 316, Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 625 F. Supp. 2d 1187, 1194 (N.D. Fla. 2008)). However, regardless of its legitimacy, the CRN itself contains a cure in the form of an admission of liability and Frontline cannot even begin to attempt to cure the instant CRN on such unclear terms. The cure requests five different monetary amounts, under 5 different sets of terms, and provides no specified basis for Frontline to even attempt to calculate some unknown amount of interest purportedly owed on top of each, or both, payment(s). The CRN requests payment on (3) all undisputed insurance proceeds to the Insured while continuing to adjust the loss with the Insured; (4) all amounts representing all damages, plus monies due for other coverages, incidental and consequential damages, all monies due and/or paid for remedial or temporary repairs, and less any prior payments other than noted herein, applicable depreciation, and deductibles; (5) interest on untimely payments from the date the carrier was notified of the loss or, upon the election of the Insured, pay such other interest payments as may be available under Florida law, including prejudgment interest; (6) all attorney’s fees and costs; (7) the present total, pre-suit indemnity demand of $488,936.66, less the applicable deductibles and prior payment, along with any applicable depreciation to be withheld until due and owing under the subject policy. The cure demand is merely an attempt to deceive Frontline into issuing some ambiguous payment(s) rather than defending itself against a threat of bad faith when no bad faith is remotely existent. Given the cure, Frontline affirmatively asserts that the CRN is deficient. Since no other distinct basis for a cure has been set forth by the Civil Remedy Notice, Frontline was not provided with a reasonable opportunity to purge any alleged violations. See Kafie v. NorthWestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 834 F. Supp. 2d 1354, 1359 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (“In order to demonstrate good faith, ‘[t]he insurer must investigate the facts, [and] give fair consideration to a settlement offer that is not unreasonable under the facts…’”). Based on the facts provided, it is impossible for Frontline to satisfy the Complainant without significantly prejudicing itself, and therefore the CRN fails to provide a true and feasible cure method. Accordingly, the CRN 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 Florida Statute § 624.155. Similarly, for these reasons, the CRN fails. As outlined above, contrary to the allegations made by the CRN, Frontline sufficiently and diligently investigated the loss. Frontline maintains that it has acted fairly and honestly toward the Complainant, and any other person having an interest in the subject policy or assisting the Complainant in connection with the instant claim. Frontline consistently and promptly communicated with the Complainants and/or their agents throughout all stages of the investigation and conducted a thorough investigation in good faith. To the extent that the instant CRN is intended to address any other facts or circumstances which purport to establish additional coverage for the reported losses, the CRN provides insufficient identification of any such facts or circumstances and therefore prevents Frontline from addressing any other aspect herein. Notwithstanding, Frontline believes that the above facts demonstrate beyond dispute that it has at all times acted in good faith with regard to its investigation of the subject claim, and further believes that the facts provided to date fail to establish that it has not adjusted the reported loss in accordance with the express terms, provisions, limitations and exclusions contained within the policy. If we can provide any additional information, or be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, /s/ Michael S. Russo, Esq and Hope Zelinger. Esq. Michael S. Russo, Esq. and Hope Zelinger, Esq.
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