Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     807700
Filing Accepted:  2/20/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
SUNDECK PLAZA LLC   First Name  
Street Address * 7217 GULF BOULEVARD
City, State Zip * ST. PETE BEACH, FL 33706
Email Address * TAMMY@TRANSFORMATIONSBYTHEGULF.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   SUNDECK PLAZA LLC   First Name  
Policy # * FIW0-000106377 Claim #* 05000002926
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* ROSS First Name * VANESSA Initial
Street Address* 2501 S. TAMIAMI TRAIL
City, State Zip* SARASOTA , FLORIDA 34239
Email Address * ESERVICE@ROSSLEGALFL.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):* STEVE DAVIS, NICK HYAMS, AND ALL OTHER ADJUSTERS, SUPERVISORS, MANAGEMENT AND INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH OR RETAINED BY FRONTLINE INSURANCE UNLIMITED COMPANY AND FRONTLINE INSURANCE UNLIMITED COMPANY INVOLVED IN THE CLAIM.
Type of Insurance * Commercial Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Claim Denial
Unfair Trade Practice
* Statutory provision(s) which the insurer allegedly violated.
 
624.155(1)(b)(1) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests.
624.155(1)(b)(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)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Dwelling Coverage provisions Perils Insured Against Loss Payment Loss Settlement
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. Frontline Insurance Unlimited Company and Frontline Insurance Unlimited Company (“INSURER”) has breached the public’s trust by its adjustment of Sundeck Plaza LLC (“INSURED”) claim of loss. Frontline Insurance Unlimited Company and Frontline Insurance Unlimited Company’s mailing address is 500 International Parkway, Lake Mary, FL 32746. INSURER has failed to create and implement adequate guidelines for the proper investigation and evaluation of claims, claims handling, and for training and supervision of employees resulting in statutory violations as set forth above. INSURER has failed and/or refused to thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigate and evaluate the INSURED’S insurance claim for damages. INSURER has failed to promptly settle the INSURED’S insurance claim when the obligation to settle the insurance claim had become reasonably clear. To date, notwithstanding the INSURED’S pleas otherwise, INSURER has continued to refuse to acknowledge its obligation to conduct a proper investigation, and to tender the full amount of insurance monies due and owing its INSURED under the policy. This claim involves the INSUREDS’ property located at 7217 Gulf Boulevard, St. Pete Beach, FL 33706 which sustained significant damage from windstorm on or about September 26, 2024. The carrier inspected the property and determined that the amount of damage sustained did not exceed the deductible amount. Frontline accepted payment for soffit repair, gutter repair, painting the gutter/downspout, boom or spider lift, repair to 2 roof tiles, sign replacement, debris removal, and labor minimums for roofing and gutters. The estimate totaled $11,107.60. The Insured retained Storm One Claims, LLC to prepare an estimate of damage sustained by the loss. Storm One Claims LLC prepared an estimate in the amount of $444,565.55 RCV. In order to resolve the dispute, the Insured is willing to reduce their demand. Therefore, demand is hereby made in the amount of $250,000.00. The concept of insurance is that the insurer will investigate and grant timely and prompt indemnity or security against a contingent loss. 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 upon determinable contingencies. Inherent in that definition is the fact that payment must be made timely and promptly so that the INSURED may mitigate their damages and be put back into the position they were in prior to the loss as quickly as possible. INSURER has breached this duty. The INSURED was, and still is, forced to expend out of pocket monies to submit her insurance claim, e.g., retaining an attorney and other experts to force INSURER to honor its obligations under the insurance policy and to pay all the insurance proceeds due and owing to them. INSURER has refused and/or failed to tender all the insurance proceeds due and owing to the INSURED. INSURER’s refusal and/or failure to settle the insurance claim when under all circumstances it could have and should have done so had it acted fairly and honestly towards the INSURED is wrongful conduct. Furthermore, the INSURED contends that INSURER’s adjusters and/or representatives financially benefit from such wrongful conduct. This notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by Fla. Stat. §624.155. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, INSURER must: (1) Create and implement adequate guidelines for the proper investigation and evaluation of claims and for the training and supervision of employees, which will avoid future statutory violations as set forth above, and prevent this from occurring in the future; (2) INSURER must create and implement adequate guidelines for the proper investigation and evaluation of these types of claims and for the training and supervision of employees with regard to these claims to ensure that the claims handling procedure with regard to these types of losses are adequate to prevent other Insureds from being treated unfairly and wrongfully; (3) INSURER must tender to the INSURED $250,000.00 as set forth above; and, (4) INSURER must act fairly and honestly towards its INSURED and with due regard for her interests in attempting to settle its INSURED’S claim. Attachments: Storm One Estimate.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
hzelinger@bressler.com 04-18-2025 Dear Ms. Ross: Please accept this response on behalf of Frontline Insurance Unlimited Company (hereinafter “Frontline”) to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (hereinafter “CRN”) No. 807700, filed on behalf of Sundeck Plaza, LLC (hereinafter, the “Complainant” or the “Insured”), and accepted by the Florida Department of Financial Services on February 20, 2025. As stated in further detail below, the CRN is deficient and fails to preserve a bad faith claim as CRN filing 807700 demands the exact same cure as a separate CRN filing, filing number 807701, which relates to an entirely different storm. As a result, Frontline is unable to even consider or discern a cure to the purported bad faith allegations. The demand for Frontline to pay the exact same damages twice, is contrary to Florida law and the policy, and fails to put Frontline on proper notice of the allegations against it and fails to allow Frontline the proper opportunity to address and/or cure any alleged bad faith. For these reasons and the reasons stated within this CRN, the CRN is devoid of any merit. The Civil Remedy Notice (“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. • 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)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. Please accept this as Frontline’s response to the above-referenced CRN filed with the Department of Financial Services by the Complainant, Sundeck Plaza, LLC. 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; failing to promptly settle claims when the obligation to settle a claim has become reasonably clear; failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims; failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims, 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. Beyond Frontline’s adamant belief that it acted with the utmost good faith, the CRN is deficient and fails to preserve any and all claims for statutory bad faith under Florida Law. The CRN’s attempt to identify the specific policy language relevant to the violation is woefully deficient. “Courts have found that listing whole sections of the insurance policy constitutes insufficient specificity.” See Fox v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., No. 8:16-CV-3254-T-23MAP, 2017 WL 1541294 at *2 and Julien v. United Property & Casualty Insurance Company No. 4D19-2763 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020).” 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 merely lists headings of entire sections of the policy including “Dwelling Coverage provisions,” “Perils Insured Against,” “Loss Payment,” and “Loss Settlement,” without including any context as to why they’re relevant to the instant CRN or any allegations against Frontline. The Complainant entirely failed to respond to the Department’s prompt, 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, thus, prejudicing Frontline 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 few credible 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 outcome oriented. 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] failed and/or refused to thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigate and evaluate” the claim for damages. However, the Complainant has provided no facts or evidence to support this allegation. As a preliminary matter, the Insured has reported two identical claims for the exact same damage, as it relates to Hurricane Helene and Hurricane Milton. Unfortunately for Frontline, the Insured failed to report the Hurricane Helene claim before Hurricane Milton occurred and as a result, Frontline was prejudiced in its ability to investigate and determine the date in which the damages occurred. This is significant because if covered damages occurred during both storms, the Insured would be subject to the application of the windstorm deductible on both occasions. Due to the late reporting and lack of information and photographs provided, Frontline was not provided with a sufficient opportunity to make that determination. Further, the instant CRN alleges that Frontline violated statute 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) - Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. This allegation is blatantly false. The claim was reported to Frontline on November 4, 2024, and Frontline promptly sent a claim acknowledgement letter that same day. This letter also requested that the insured submit a sworn proof of loss which the insured provided on January 3, 2025, and Frontline provided a corresponding response on January 17, 2025. Frontline also issued an initial coverage determination letter on November 25, 2024, and a second coverage determination letter on January 23, 2025. The facts show that Frontline promptly acknowledged the claim and all communications with respect to the claims. Frontline also promptly and properly investigated the subject claims. Shortly after receiving notice of the claim, Frontline inspected the subject property with an independent adjuster, Nick Hyams of Midstate Claim Solutions, on November 19, 2024, within 2 weeks of Frontline’s receipt of the Complainant’s claim for insurance benefits. Frontline again inspected the subject property with an independent field adjuster, Evert Suarez of Otter Claim Solutions, on November 26, 2024. Following these inspections, Frontline engaged an engineer, Joseph C. Stollings of Grindley Williams Engineering, who also inspected the property on March 24, 2025. The findings of Mr. Stollings’ investigation confirmed that the roof of the subject property should be repaired, rather than replaced as incorporated in the insured’s estimate. Mr. Stollings’ investigation also confirmed that the water damage to the interior of the building was caused by flood, which is specifically excluded under the policy. Mr. Stollings also reaffirmed the independent adjuster’s findings that the damage to the siding was the result of wear, tear, and age-related deterioration. Further, on April 18, 2025, Frontline issued a supplemental payment and coverage determination letter. The TruClaim estimate provided the replacement cost value in the amount of $47,291.36, and Frontline issued the insured a supplemental claim payment of $13,384.34 after applying the deductible. As noted above, the Insured submitted identical claims and damages for both losses. Frontline opted to only apply the deductible once and issued payment in the amount of $13,384.34 to address the post deductible damages in connection with these claims. Frontline is still in the investigative process, gathering new information and analyzing the information its already obtained, to issue a fair coverage determination. However, the instant CRN makes vague and unsupported allegations of claims mishandling. Rather, the fact of the matter is that Frontline is thoroughly inspecting and investigating the subject claim. It is the Complainant who is not complying with the policy’s terms and who is continuing to make unsupported allegations in an attempt to deceive Frontline to issue unwarranted payments and/or additional benefits. The insured continues to attempt to engage in deceptive practices by asserting duplicative claims for the same damages under both Hurricane Milton and Hurricane Helene, in an effort to obtain double recovery and induce Frontline to issue unwarranted payments. The subject CRN makes egregious and baseless allegations that “Insurer has failed to create and implement adequate guidelines for the proper investigation and evaluation of claims, claims handling, and for training and supervision of employees resulting in statutory violations…” These are serious blanket allegations made without one scintilla of factual evidence in support of any of such claims. As demonstrated by the facts outlined above, Frontline diligently investigated the subject loss, repeatedly and routinely communicated with the Complainant, and acted accordingly based upon the facts it discovered and according to the terms of the insurance contract which provides rights to both the Complainant as well as the insurer for scenarios just like this one. Plaintiff’s cure demand is indiscernible and as such Frontline is not given a fair opportunity to cure the CRN. The CRN states: 1) Create and implement adequate guidelines for the proper investigation and evaluation of claims and for the training and supervision of employees, which will avoid future statutory violates as set forth above, and prevent this from occurring in the future; 2) Insurer must create and implement adequate guidelines for the proper investigation and evaluation of these types of claims and for the training and supervision of employees with regard to these claims to ensure that the claims handling procedure with regard to these types of losses are adequate to prevent other Insureds from being treated unfairly and wrongfully; 3) Insurer must tender to the Insured $250,000.00 as set forth above; and, 4) Insurer must act fairly and honestly towards its Insured and with due regard for her interests in attempted to settle its Insured’s claim. First and foremost, the cure is deficient because the Insured is demanding that Frontline issue payment in the amount of $250,000, which is the exact same cure demanded in CRN filing number 807701, related to claim number 05000002988, as a result of Hurricane Milton. The fact that the Insured is demanding that Frontline issue the exact same benefits twice, renders the CRN void and deficient because Frontline is unable to pay the Insured two times for the same damage. The stated cure is an impossibility and/or undiscernible as neither Florida law nor the policy allows for “double dipping” or the double reimbursement of damages. Even if this was a stand alone demand, which it is not, the stated cure 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. In addition to demanding “everything I’ve asked for,” the cure is unclear as to what it’s asking for beyond the stated monetary amount. The stated monetary amount is an arbitrary number, and the cure provides no basis for Frontline to even attempt to calculate what it seeks when demanding several unclear payments and reimbursements to the insured Complainants, and then some unknown amount of interest purportedly owed on top of those indeterminate payments. Rather, the cure demand is merely an attempt to deceive Frontline into issuing some ambiguous payment rather than defending itself against a threat of bad faith when no bad faith is remotely existent anywhere throughout the instant claim. 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 Complainants 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 Complainant and/or their public adjuster and/or other agents throughout all stages of the investigation and conducted a thorough investigation in good faith. In no uncertain terms, Frontline continued to investigate these claims notwithstanding the failure by the Insured to promptly report and differentiate the damage, Frontline issued payment in connection with the claims, retained licensed professionals to evaluate the claims and communicated all findings to the Insured. Beyond the fact that this CRN should be void due to the submission of duplicative damages across both claims, Frontline maintains that it has acted in good faith during each and every aspect of this claim investigation. 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/ Hope C. Zelinger Hope C. 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