Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     808068
Filing Accepted:  2/24/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
GILMAN   First Name   BEN AND ADRIENNE
Street Address * 962 PONTE VEDRA BLVD
City, State Zip * PONTE VEDRA BEACH, FL 32082
Email Address * BEN.C.GILMAN@GMAIL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   GILMAN   First Name   BEN AND ADRIENNE
Policy # * 2722466389 Claim #* 01000060859
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* ZANAKOS First Name * CHRISTINA Initial N
Street Address* 20283 FL 7 SUITE 422
City, State Zip* BOCA RATON , FL 33498
Email Address * CHRISTINA@ELITELEGALPA.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   FIRST PROTECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10897
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* BRAD LEEDHAM, STEPHEN COLLIER, STEPHEN TILLMAN, AND ALL OTHER INSPECTORS, ADJUSTERS, ENGINEERS, SUPERVISORS, MANAGERS, LITIGATION SPECIALISTS, CLAIM HANDLERS, AND INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH THE HANDLING OF THEIR CLAIM.
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
Claim Delay
Unfair Trade Practice
Other : Disregarding Covered peril damage
Other : Failure and refusal to reimburse incurred ALE expenses, per the Policy
Other : Failure and Refusal to reimburse incurred repair expenses, per the Policy
Other : Failure and refusal to timely respond to the Insureds or their representatives
Other : Failure and Refusal to conduct a reasonable investigation
* 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)(2) A material misrepresentation made to an insured or any other person having an interest in the proceeds payable under such contract or policy, for the purpose and with the intent of effecting settlement of such claims, loss, or damage under such contract or policy on less favorable terms than those provided in, and contemplated by, such contract or policy.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f) Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of the basis in the insurance policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

In addition to the above statutory provisions that have been violated, the following provisions of the Florida Administrative Code regarding ethical requirements for adjusters have also been violated:  69B-220.201(3)(B) – An adjuster shall treat all claims equally. 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)(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 Additionally, to the Insureds’ information and belief, the following policy provisions were violated by FRONTLINE in the improper handling of their claim, pursuant to Policy Number 2722466389 COVERAGE A – DWELLING 1. We cover: a. the dwelling on the “residence premises” shown in the Declarations, including structures attached to the dwelling; D. COVERAGE D – LOSS OF USE 1. Additional Living Expense If a loss covered under Section I makes that part of the “residence premises” where you reside not fit to live in, we cover any necessary increase in living expenses incurred by you so that your household can maintain its normal standard of living. Payment will be for the shortest time to repair or replace the damage, or, if you permanently relocate, the shortest time required for your household to settle elsewhere. E. ADDITIONAL COVERAGES 2. Reasonable Repairs a. We will pay the reasonable costs incurred by you for the necessary measures taken solely to protect covered property that is damaged by a Peril Insured Against from further damage. 11. Ordinance Or Law a. you may use up to 10% of the limit of liability that applies to Coverage A for the increased costs you incur due to the enforcement of any ordinance or law SECTION I – PERILS INSURED AGAINST COVERAGE A – DWELLING AND COVERAGE B – OTHER STRUCTURES 1. We insure against direct physical loss to property described in Coverages A and B SECTION I – CONDITIONS D. Loss Settlement J. Loss Payment LIMITED GUNFI, WET OR DRY ROT, OR BACTERIA COVERAGE Endorsement $10,000 EACH COVERED LOSS Additional Coverages The following Additional Coverage 13. Is added 13. “Fungi”, Wet or Dry Rot, or Bacteria a. the amount shown in the schedule above is the most we will pay for: (1) the total of all loss or costs payable under Section I Property Coverages caused by fungi wet or dry rot or bacteria; (2) The cost to remove fungi wet or dry rot or bacteria from property covered under Section I Property Coverages; (3) The cost to est our and replace any part of the building (4) the cost of testing of air or property to confirm Including all definition sections, coverage sections, and loss payment provision sections of the Policy.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

This notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by section 624.155, Florida Statutes. In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. The insurance company has breached this duty in the adjustment of the Insureds’ claim of loss. Insurance company has failed to create and implement adequate guidelines for proper investigation of claims handling and for training and supervision of employees resulting in statutory violations (as set forth above). Further, insurance company has failed and/or refused to thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigate, evaluate, and pay the Insureds’ insurance claim for damages. Insurance company has also ignored important information that would benefit the Insureds, as described in further detail below. Though the Insureds sustained a loss that, pursuant to the terms of their policy, should be covered by FRONTLINE, the carrier has failed to tender all monies due and owing to the Insureds for the damage caused to their property. The entire concept of insurance promises the Insureds timely and prompt indemnity in exchange for their premium payments to the Insurance company.  Florida Statute section 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 is the fact that the insurance company must issue payment for a covered loss in a timely manner so that the Insureds may mitigate their damages and put them back in the position they were in prior to the loss as quickly as possible. Insurance company has breached this duty by refusing and failing to tender all insurance proceeds due and owing to the Insureds upon their proper and timely submission of a claim. Insurance company charged the Insureds a premium for coverage under the policy of insurance but refused and/or failed to fulfill its obligations per the Policy, when under all circumstances it could and should have done so had it acted fairly and honestly towards the Insureds. Furthermore, the Insureds believe Insurance Company repeatedly and as a standard business practice engages in this behavior to deprive its Insureds of their rightful insurance proceeds when they experience a covered loss. Insureds contend other Insureds have been refused insurance proceeds due and owing under the policy in the same or similar circumstances, and have been provided inadequate insurance monies under the same or similar facts or circumstances. The Insureds further contends that Insurance company commits this standard business practice only to keep the claims adjustment process open and pending so that it does not have to pay fully on the claim. This is wrongful conduct and directly violates the purpose of insurance coverage. Insurance company’s wrongful conduct and omissions include, but are not limited to: claim delay, not conducting a full and prompt investigation, not treating the policyholder with good faith claims conduct, looking for ways to reduce recovery to Insureds; looking for ways to delay full recovery to Insureds; wrongfully denying claim; holding back and failing to pay portions of claim clearly owed; not adjusting the claim and evaluating the loss properly, promptly and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to the Insureds; not training, supervising or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made, but rather placing the company’s interests before the policyholder’s interests; establishing severity control initiatives and otherwise establishing a culture of not fully and promptly paying claims following losses; and failing to pay the full amount of the Insureds’ damage despite knowing it must do so. In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. FRONTLINE has breached this trust by its adjustment of the Insureds’ claim of loss by refusing to properly indemnify the Insureds for their loss in direct contradiction of the terms of the Policy and Florida Statutes. On or about August 21, 2022, the Insureds (Ben Gilman and Adrienne Gilman) suffered a loss at the property caused by a sudden and accidental air conditioning leak, resulting in extensive water and mold damage to their Property. At the time of the loss, the Insureds’ property was insured by Frontline under policy number 2722466389. The Insureds had recently replaced the roof in its entirety out of pocket and believed the cause of loss to be a roof leak, as the water appeared to be coming in from the ceiling and it looked as though it were raining inside the home. The Insureds immediately reported the loss to the insurance company as a roof leak, pursuant to their Policy, as they believed at the time of the loss that it was the cause. In the meantime, the Insureds contacted the roofing company who performed the roof replacement and requested they come back to inspect. The roofing company came out numerous times and resealed certain areas of the roof, ultimately concluding the roof was not the problem and it was in fact an air conditioning leak. Upon being advised of the air conditioning cause of loss, the Insureds promptly took steps to ensure the HVAC system was fixed and repair the significant damages to their home. Despite timely reporting, it was not until October 10, 2022, that Frontline sent an adjuster to the property to perform a hurried inspection and prepare a boilerplate report. Frontline sent correspondence to the Insureds dated October 11, 2022 (errantly referencing a conversation on October 17, 2022, which obviously had not yet occurred), denying the claim and indicating the roof suffered from wear and tear, deterioration and inadequate workmanship, yet providing no further or specific details to support its denial or conclusions that the roof was damaged from wear and tear, deterioration, or inadequate workmanship. Frontline simply pointed to reasons why the claim should be denied per the policy instead of evaluating the damages for what they actually showed and/or explaining what specifically pointed to wear, tear, deterioration, and/or inadequate workmanship. By listing a laundry list of exclusions, Frontline showed its obvious intent to deny the claim up front without conducting a full and proper investigation. Had Frontline further investigated at the time of its initial inspection, seeking to find coverage per the Policy rather than deny it, it would have also concluded the issue was in fact with the air conditioning at the property, which is a covered loss. To further evidence Frontline’s improper evaluation of the claim, the Insureds had a new roof put on the property in July 2022 by J&M Roofing and had water intrusion issues in August of 2022, which were promptly reported to the carrier. It is highly unlikely, if not impossible, for a brand-new roof to be suffering from wear and tear or deterioration a month after replacement. Though this was ultimately not the cause of loss, the fact that Frontline immediately denied the claim and cited “wear, tear, deterioration, inadequate workmanship, maintenance” as the cause is clear evidence that Frontline did not fully or even adequately inspect the Property that it is obligated to provide coverage for, pursuant to the Policy. Despite Frontline’s immediate wrongful denial of the Insureds’ covered air conditioning loss, the Insureds promptly began mitigating their damages and retained the following vendors: Southern Brothers Inspections to perform a mold test and confirm the mold at the Property caused by the loss in the amount of $1,554; ATR Solutions to perform tear out and mold remediation in the amount of $89,993.28; Griffin HVAC for HVAC duct work and reinstall in the amount of $53,319; Vie Home Services for drywall, insulation, ceiling install, related construction for a total of $87,993; Mercury Carpet replacement of damaged carpet in the amount of $15,094; WR Rohn for inspection, insultation, ceiling repair in the amount of $33,456; Donovan Air for equipment removal and install for a total of $22,990. Additionally, given the extensive damages to the interior of the Property, the Insureds had no choice but to vacate the Property while work was being completed. The Insureds incurred a total of $46,546.48 for lodging outside of the home, which is well within the Policy’s ALE limit of $195,000 (see breakdown of costs incurred below, receipts have all been provided to Frontline): (1) Air BNB $10,999.55 receipt dated September 7; (2) Air BNB $10,999.55 receipt dated September 30, (3) Blue Ridge Mountain Rentals receipt dated September 30 for $4,036.07, (4) Blue Ridge Mountain Rentals receipt dated October 9 for $3,419.38, (5) Hotels.com receipt dated October 26 for 209.75, (6) Element Jacksonville Beach receipt dated November 1 for $175.33, (7) Hotels.com receipt dated August 23 for $2,263.89, (8) Air BNB receipt dated November 3 for $10,563.89, (9) Air BNB receipted dated November 23 for $3,879.07. Despite receipt of the Insureds’ incurred repair invoices, photos, incurred additional living expenses, the inspections allowed, and extensive mitigation documentation submitted to Frontline, Frontline improperly denied the claim, citing “age, wear, tear, deterioration, and inadequate workmanship, maintenance.” After receiving Frontline’s denial letter, on December 8, 2022, the Insureds submitted a Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation, along with a 66-page PDF (which included receipts of incurred expenses at the time) and the Insureds’ demand to resolve prior to litigation. In response, Frontline continued to deny coverage on December 21, 2022, refusing to further investigate the loss. Left with no other option, the Insureds filed suit on December 27, 2022. Despite Plaintiff’s repeated attempts to negotiate an early resolution since filing suit in December of 2022, the carrier has continued to fail and refuse to negotiate in good faith, resulting in prolonged unnecessary discovery. Plaintiff’s requests to set depositions and move the case forward were completely ignored by Defendant’s previous counsel, which has resulted in numerous motions to compel for deposition dates. Further, the Insureds’ depositions were cancelled and reset numerous times. Discovery took two years to complete given the repeated delays and have resulted in significant fees and costs. A previous Civil Remedy Notice was filed prior to suit on December 8, 2022, which has long since expired without Cure. As evidenced by Defendant’s complete and utter failure to litigate the file (as noted above), the bad faith conduct to my clients has continued and still continues to this day. As discovery has progressed, the cause of loss was not a roof leak as initially thought, but actually an air conditioning leak, which is also a covered loss per the Policy. Therefore, this CRN has been filed to correct the record and reflect the updated cause of loss. The loss occurred over 2 and a half years ago and the Insureds have still not been reimbursed for any of their incurred expenses that are due per the policy, despite having extensive insurance coverage for the losses suffered and proof of payment submitted. But for the carrier’s repeated delays and wrongful denial of their claim, the Insureds would not have had to incur hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages, nor would they have needed to retain counsel and litigate the file for years to recover insurance proceeds that the Insureds have already paid out and are due to be reimbursed pursuant to the Policy and Florida Statutes. Frontline has and continues to blatantly disregard the insurance Policy in bad faith by its failure and refusal to tender payment to the Insureds for their incurred expenses, despite receiving proof of same on multiple occasions by the Insureds and their representatives. For example, despite extensive proof of mold damages and costs incurred, Frontline has failed and refused to tender the $10,000 mold cap that is undisputedly owed per the Policy. Frontline has also failed and refused to reimburse the Insureds for their nearly $50,000 in incurred ALE costs, despite being well within policy limits and proof of expenditures submitted to Frontline on numerous occasions. Frontline’s representatives have also denied the claim in bad faith without conducting a reasonable investigation and relied upon a laundry list of exclusions to deny the claim, none of which are even remotely accurate (such as stating the roof suffers from wear and tear, deterioration, inadequate workmanship, maintenance) when the roof had been replaced one month prior. It is clear from Frontline’s coverage decision letter the denial was performed in bad faith without a reasonable investigation to the Insureds’ detriment. Additionally, even in suit, Frontline has delayed the claim by failing and refusing to litigate the file and has required multiple motions to compel in order to move the case forward with basic discovery such as setting depositions. Frontline’s blatant bad faith is handling the Insureds’ claim is egregious and must be considered in any settlement, should one be reached prior to trial. Despite the significant amount of damages to the Insureds’ Property as a result of the loss and extent of documentation provided by the Insureds to the carrier, Frontline continues to fail and refuse to properly adjust the loss in direct violation of the Policy and Florida Statutes. Given the carrier’s refusal to properly adjust the claim and blatant disregard for the Policy and Florida Statutes, the Insureds felt they had no choice but to resort to litigation to recover rightfully owed insurance proceeds for the damages caused to their Property. Pursuant to Florida Statute §624.155(1)(b)(1), the Insurer, FRONTLINE, has a duty to attempt, in good faith, to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly towards the Insureds and with due regard for their interests. FRONTLINE has breached these duties in the handling of the Claim for financial gain and profit. FRONTLINE did so when it refused to properly adjust the claim and purposefully delayed the claim process. Consequently, FRONTLINE has violated Florida Statute §624.155(1)(b)(1). It would seem that FRONTLINE is indifferent to the needs of its loyal customers, whose insurance premiums it did not hesitate to collect. FRONTLINE had the duty to investigate and settle the Insureds’ Claim in an honest manner and according to the coverage provided under the Policy. To be clear, FRONTLINE and its representatives had a duty to investigate the Claim and pay the Insureds the benefits they would be entitled to for the repairs under the terms and conditions outlined in the Policy and under Florida law. It has not done so to date, despite it being well over 2.5 years since the loss occurred and the Insureds making every effort to resolve the claim in the meantime. What FRONTLINE did was wrongfully deny the Claim without conducting a reasonable investigation with qualified and competent adjusters and experts, despite the fact that the evidence clearly shows the property was damaged by a covered air conditioning loss, resulting in significant damage. This unfair and unsupported denial of the Claim is evidence that FRONTLINE has mishandled the Claim and its conduct is nothing less than common bad faith claims handling practices. Additionally, Frontline relies on information it has not and cannot produce, stating there is wear and tear, deterioration and inadequate workmanship, without providing any additional details to support their conclusory statements. Pursuant to Florida Statute §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), FRONTLINE had a duty to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation and settlement of claims. It is clear from the facts in this case that FRONTLINE was ill equipped to handle the Claim. The representatives sent to the Property by FRONTLINE failed to correctly attribute the cause of loss and proper scope of damages resulting from the air conditioning event resulting in water and mold damage, despite its inspection of the Property and the extent of documentation sent from the Insureds’ evidencing the damages. During the adjustment of the claim, the Insureds complied with all requests made by Frontline. To date, the Insureds still have not been properly compensated for their loss. The Insureds are now concerned that FRONTLINE will attempt to further drag out the claims handling process unnecessarily and delay tendering any payment. The Insureds are at a loss of how to proceed, as FRONTLINE has failed and refused to properly assist the Insureds with their covered loss despite its ethical, contractual, and statutory obligation to do so. There may be further wrongful conduct which has not yet been made known to the Insureds at this time. For example, certain conduct or actions cannot be verified without a complete review of FRONTLINE’s claim file and claim guidelines. The Insureds therefore retain the right to address additional concerns as they become known.  FRONTLINE improperly shifted the burden of proving the loss onto the Insureds before adequately tendering insurance proceeds (which FRONTLINE still has not done). This completely defeats the purpose of insurance, as the insurance company should adequately compensate its Insureds for covered losses properly at the outset of a claim, not after months of being chased by and sent multiple pages of documentation by the Insureds, fighting to have their loss properly compensated.  Pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 624.155, punitive damages may be awarded against an insurance company if the acts giving rise to the violation occur with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice and these acts are:  (a) willful, wanton, and malicious;  (b) in reckless disregard for the rights of any insured; or  (c) in reckless disregard for the rights of a beneficiary under a life insurance contract.  It is the Insureds’ position that Insurance Company engages in the practice of wrongfully denying or underpaying insurance claims as a general business practice in a willful effort to increase profits and in reckless disregards for the Insureds’ rights. This is wrongful conduct.  Notwithstanding the above, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, FRONTLINE must do the following:  (1) FRONTLINE must promptly assist the Insureds in mitigating their damages, including reimbursement to the Insureds of all incurred mitigation costs; (2) FRONTLINE must act fairly and honestly towards the Insureds and with due regard for their interests in attempting to resolve the Insureds’ claim;  (3) FRONTLINE must promptly tender all insurance proceeds due and owing the Insureds for their incurred costs, as previously described in detailed line items above; (4) FRONTLINE must agree to reimburse the Insureds for their expenses incurred by having to retain legal counsel and their own experts to present their claim, which will be provided upon request to counsel based on fees and costs incurred at the time of the request; (5) FRONTLINE must immediately tender statutory pre-judgment interest pursuant to Florida Statute Section 627.70131 and/or Section 55.03 for the 2.5 years of delays in resolving the claim. The Insureds still hope that this claim can be resolved amicably. Failure to cure the defects as described herein will result in additional extra-contractual damages.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
dmontgomery@kelleykronenberg.com 04-04-2025 Dear Attorney Zanakos: Please accept this correspondence as First Protective Insurance Company, dba Frontline Homeowners Insurance Company’s (“Frontline") response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations ("CRN"), submitted to the Department of Financial Services (hereafter “DFS”) on behalf of complainants Ben and Adrienne Gilman (“the Insureds”), dated February 24, 2025. First Protective Insurance Company did not issue a homeowners insurance policy to the Insureds, and at no time was there an insurer-insured relation between them. Nor was a claim ever submitted to First Protective Insurance Company by or on behalf of the Complainant or Insured. It appears that the Complainant mistakenly named the wrong insurance carrier in the Civil Remedy Notice. As such, First Protective Insurance Company requests the Complainant to immediately withdraw the Civil Remedy Notice. In the alternative, First Protective Insurance Company respectfully requests the DFS to find the Civil Remedy Notice insufficient. Frontline denies any of its actions have resulted in any violation(s) of Florida’s bad faith laws, including statutes §624.155 and §626.9541, as alleged in the CRN. Instead, Frontline has acted at all times in good faith in its investigation and handling of this claim and concerning the best interest of the Insureds. While Frontline welcomes the opportunity to respond to this CRN and explicitly denies every allegation contained in the CRN referenced above, Frontline asserts the CRN is deficient as it fails to comply with several of the requirements of the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation document provisions as outlined in Florida Statute §624.155, and Florida case law. Under Florida law, a first-party bad faith action is not recognized at common law. Baxter v. Royal Indemnity. Co., 285 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). In 1982, the Florida Legislature enacted § 624.155, which created a statutory first-party bad-faith cause of action by an insured against the insurance carrier. See § 624.155, Fla. Stat.; State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Laforet, 658 So. 2d 55, 59 (Fla. 1995). As a derogation of common law, this statute is strictly construed. Nowak v. Lexington Ins. Co., 464 F. Supp. 2d 1248 (S.D. Fla. 2006); Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Buck, 594 So. 2d 280, 281 (Fla. 1992) (stating that a person seeking the benefit of a statutorily created remedy had to strictly comply with the requirements of the statute because the remedy is “purely a creature of statute”). The Florida Supreme Court has specifically applied this rule of construction to section 624.155. See Talat, 753 So. 2d at 1283-84. As stated by the Florida Supreme Court, the purpose of a Notice is to put the insurer on notice of an alleged violation, the circumstances surrounding same, and indicate the details of the alleged violation in order to provide an insurer with 60 days to "cure" the alleged claim defects. See Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 753 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). The purpose of Fla. Stat. Section §624.155 is to provide the insurer with an opportunity to resolve a first-party coverage dispute and otherwise avoid litigation. See Talat Enterprises, Inc.; see also Lane v. Westfield Ins. Co., 862 So.2d 744 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). The statute requires this notice to: [S]tate with specificity the following information . . . (1) the statutory provision, including the specific language of the statute, which the authorized insurer allegedly violated[;] (2) the facts and circumstances giving rise to such violation[;] (3) the name of any individual involved in the violation[;] (4) reference the specific policy language that is relevant to the violation, if any . . . [;] (5) a statement that the notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section. Fla. Stat. § 624.155(3)(a). This statute has been interpreted to require that the Notice must be sufficiently specific to provide the insurer with an opportunity to cure the alleged violations. This would include i) identifying the specific policy provision(s) at issue, ii) citing the specific language of the statutory provision(s) the insurer allegedly violated, and iii) specifically identifying what actions the insurer must take to remedy the alleged violations. Rousso v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., 2010 WL 7367059 (S.D. Fla. August 13, 2010); Heritage Corp. of S. Fla. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburg, PA, 580 F. Supp. 2nd 1294, 1299-1300 (S.D. Fla. 2008). In addition, providing vague reference to the policy is insufficient to put the insurer on notice of its alleged policy violation. See Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2020 Fla. App. LEXIS 13520, *7 (Fla. 4th DCA September 23, 2020). In contravention of these requirements, the subject Notice is vague and lacks fundamental information to allow Frontline to respond. Specifically, the CRN contains "cures" that are improper pursuant to Florida case law. Talat provides the scope of what can be "cured" is limited to the alleged non-payment of the contractual amounts due to an insured holding "the contractual amount due the insured is the amount owed pursuant to the express terms and conditions of the policy after all of the conditions precedent of the insurance policy in respect to payment are fulfilled..." Here, the Insureds demands Frontline: 1) FRONTLINE must promptly assist the Insureds in mitigating their damages, including reimbursement to the Insureds of all incurred mitigation costs. a. The statement above does not list what the mitigation costs are and as such, the Notice does not adequately place Frontline on notice of what it would take to cure such violation, even if such a violation did exist. 2) FRONTLINE must act fairly and honestly towards the Insureds and with due regard for their interests in attempting to resolve the Insureds’ claim; 3) FRONTLINE must promptly tender all insurance proceeds due and owing the Insureds for their incurred costs, as previously described in detailed line items above; 4) FRONTLINE must agree to reimburse the Insureds for their expenses incurred by having to retain legal counsel and their own experts to present their claim, which will be provided upon request to counsel based on fees and costs incurred at the time of the request; 5) Frontline must immediately tender statutory pre-judgment interest pursuant to Florida Statute Section §627.70131 and/or Section 55.03 for the 2.5 years of delays in resolving the claim. The Insureds vague and ambiguous demands within the Notice fail to provide Frontline with a clear method to cure. The notice filed in this matter includes multiple statutory provisions regardless of whether they are relevant or applicable to the alleged facts contained in the Civil Remedy Notice. Specifically, the Insureds allege that Frontline violated the following statutes and applicable language (as taken from the Notice of Insurer Violations): 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 towards its insured and with due regard for his or her 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)(2) A material misrepresentation made to an insured or any other person having an interest in the proceeds payable under such contract or policy, for the purpose and with the intent of effecting settlement of such claims, loss, or damage under such contract or policy on less favorable terms than those provided in, and contemplated by, such contract or policy. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f) Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing ot the insured of the basis I the insurance policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement. 69B-220.201(3)(B) An adjuster shall treat all claims equally. 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)(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 proper disposition of the claim. Frontline adamantly denies every allegation outlined in the CRN of insurer violation. The Insureds also fail to state any factual basis for bad faith. The facts reveal that Frontline promptly and adequately investigated the Insureds’ claim. Additionally, the CRN is insufficient on its face and should be considered insufficient for failing to comply with each and every requirement of §624.155 since the CRN does not specifically describe the facts or circumstances giving rise to each specific violation alleged against Frontline. The CRN makes generalized, unsupported, and incorrect statements without specifically identifying the facts that give rise to each allegation pursuant to the cited statutory provisions. Instead, Insureds make conclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions, and legal conclusions. The Insureds have failed to reference any specific policy language giving rise to Frontline’s Violation. The Insureds merely state the words, “Loss Settlement Provision.” However, all allegations within the CRN are based upon wrongful denial of the claim. The Loss Settlement Provision is limited to payment of covered losses. Such allegations are insufficient to meet a pleading party’s requirement to state a cause of action and are insufficient to serve as a basis for adequate notice of a violation. Notwithstanding the deficiencies, Frontline denies that it or its representatives acted in any manner that violated the statutes cited or any other statutory provisions, Frontline asserts that this is another reason why the CRN should be found insufficient and unable to support any further action for bad faith. The following background demonstrates that Frontline did indeed act in good faith: On September 7, 2022, Frontline received a claim from Insured indicating that there was water damage to the property. Frontline sent an automatic letter acknowledging the claim with an attached home owners bill of rights. Frontline also sent an additional receipt of claim letter, with a request for proof of loss form and claim to damage properties form. Frontline also sent a mediation rights letter, with attachments regarding the forms requested. On September 8, 2022, Frontline received a call from Insured requesting to speak with Adjuster. Insured was informed Adjuster is Brandon Moye, who was at that time unavailable. Adjuster Moye conducted two return phone calls to Insured and left messages for a return call. Frontline also sent a letter to Insured indicating that Frontline was reserving its rights, and notifying Insured of their duties after loss. On September 13, 2022, technician Cortney Brent with Ready Call Restoration Services inspected the property for a water loss and water leak. Technician Brent called the homeowner but did not receive an answer, so they left a voicemail. Best Restoration of St. Johns and Duval County were onsite working. Technician Brent took photos. Frontline also received a report and arrival photos from Ready 5 Restoration services. Alec Haugdahl, P.E, of Donan Engineering, on behalf of Frontline, inspected the property on September 16, 2022 to determine the origin, cause, and duration of mold growth within the house. Ms. Kelsey Hair, a restoration contractor, and Mr. John Waldrop, a contractor with Vie Home services, were present. Contractor Hair, on behalf of Insureds, reported to Alex Haugdahl that damages were found during renovations by Vie Home Services. Mold got into the heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system and spread throughout the house. Mold was found within every level of the house, including the basement. The wall and ceiling finishes have been cleaned and/or removed and replaced throughout most of the house. An air quality company has cleared the kitchen, master bedroom, and master bathroom, and no access was available during this study. No moisture damage or mold growth was observed on the wood floors. Recent testing by the air quality company determined that there were no longer mold issues within the house. Mold is still in the finished attic of the main house and the HVAC closet in the north addition. Contractor Waldrop provided information to Alex Haugdahl on behalf of Insureds as well. Mr. Waldrop stated that Mr. Gilman was living at the house when the moisture damage was found along the drywall at the center of the main house section. The HVAC ducts were sweating. They drywall was saturated along the duct chase. Although no roof leak was found, they noticed dark staining on the vaulted ceiling planks. No leaks have been observed since the damaged drywall was removed. Two weeks ago, the walls were opened up, and the mold remediation company began their work one week ago. Aside from the HVAC closet, no mold has been found in the basement. The north addition was constructed in 2001. Vie Home Services recently installed a French drain around the perimeter of the house. Alec Haugdahl of Donan Engineering observed that dehumidifiers were operating throughout the house. The wall and ceiling drywall had been cleaned and/or removed and replaced throughout the interior. The ceiling finishes and insulation have been removed from the south side of the main house section’s vaulted ceiling. The comparative moisture level readings of the drywall vary between 15 and 40 with no discernible patter. Exposed portions of the wall framing vary between 10 percent and 13 moisture content. No staining or apparent fungal growth is on the wood floors, and the moisture content readings vary between 17 and 18 percent. Dark stains were on the wood planks cladding the center of the vaulted ceiling above the north half of the main house section. The ceiling drywall was missing from a closet on the third level of the main house. Apparent fungal growth was on the exposed drywall. Water was ponded in a pan on the floor of the water heater closet on the bottom floor of the north addition. Apparent fungal growth was on the upper walls and ceiling in the HVAC closet on the second floor of the north addition. The Engineer concluded as follows: Summary of conclusions In summary, based on what is known at this time, I am of the opinion that: The staining of the baseboards and floor slab in the HVAC closet within the bottom floor of the main house section is the result of groundwater intrusion due to the inadequate site drainage. Apparent fungal growth above the closet ceiling in the upper level of the main house section and the HVAC closet in the north addition is caused by sustained conditions that are favorable to fungal colonization, including elevated relative humidity, low lighting, and limited air movement. Elevated relative humidity inside the house is from groundwater infiltration through the perimeter walls due to inadequate site drainage, condensation along the HVAC ductwork, and inadequate moisture removal from the air by the HVAC system. The timeframe of the fungal growth is undetermined. On September 23, Frontline received the Gold Star Adjuster’s (“Public Adjuster” or “PA”) contract dated September 20, 2022, and letter of representation dated September 22, 2022. Frontline sent a response letter to PA acknowledging their letter of representation. IA Stephen Collier contacted the PA on September 30, 2022 to schedule an inspection date for October 5, 2022. IA Stephen Collier inspected the property on October 5, 2022 in the presence of Insureds’ public adjuster Yvette Forrest and contractor Mr. John Waldrop. IA Collier’s determined that ground water flooded the basement on the first floor of the dwelling due to poor drainage around the property, which raised the humidity level in the home and caused condensation on the HVAC ductwork. The inadequate moisture removal by the HVAC system created sustained conditions that were favorable to fungal colonization which caused microbial growth to form on the drywall as well. A recorded statement was taken of the insured on September 9, 2022. A policy determination letter was sent to the Insureds on October 11, 2022, regarding wear and tear and deterioration, including workmanship and non-covered perils. This denial letter makes a reference to October 27, 2022, which the Complainants reference in their CRN. Frontline was able to contact PA to explain the denial of supplemental documents on October 17, 2022. On December 9, 2022, Frontline received Opposing Counsel’s Letter of representation alleging that the property sustained damages as a result of a sudden and unexpected wind loss resulting in water and mold damage. Frontline acknowledged receipt and requested their tax identification number. Opposing Counsel’s Letter of representation included an estimate by ATR solutions dated September 2, 2022, a March 15, 2022, roof replacement estimate, and inspection invoice from Southern Brothers Inspection dated August 31. The letter of representation correspondence also included Insured’s receipts for short term rentals and hotel costs through the time of repairs and restoration. Frontline received the Insured’s first Civil Remedy Notice on December 9, 2022 alleging roof damage as a result of a wind event. Frontline also received notice of intent to litigate. Notwithstanding the above-mentioned deficiencies, the following are Frontline’s responses to each of the alleged violations noted in the Civil Remedy Notice: Fla. Stat. §624.155(1)(b)(1): Denied. Frontline conducted a complete, thorough, and timely investigation of the loss utilizing an independent adjuster to inspect the Property and determine the cause of the loss. Frontline then attempted several times to complete its investigation of the claim without the cooperation of the Insureds. Based on the failure to cooperate by the Insureds, Frontline determined there was no coverage under the Insureds’ Policy. Therefore, no violations of §624.155(1)(b)(1) have occurred. §624.155(1)(b)(3) Denied. Frontline conducted its investigation utilizing an independent adjuster to inspect the Property and a licensed engineer to determine the cause of any reported damage. Due to its determination that the loss was not covered by the policy, there was never an obligation to settle the claim. Therefore, no violations of §624.155(1)(b)(3) have occurred. Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(2): Denied. This allegation is unsupported by the facts of this case. At no time did Frontline make a material misrepresentation, or any misrepresentation. Nowhere in the CRN does it explicitly state what pertinent facts or policy provisions were misrepresented. Fla. Stat. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Denied. Frontline has adopted all proper and best practices and standard operating procedures for claims handling with regard to §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a). Frontline conducted a complete, thorough, and timely investigation of the claim by having a licensed engineer as well as an independent adjuster inspect the property. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) Denied. Frontline promptly and accurately advised the Insureds of the process regarding the claim investigation and the policy provisions implicated in the claim denial. There were no misrepresentations made of pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions related to the coverage at issue. Therefore no violations of §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) have occurred. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) Denied. This allegation is unsupported by the facts of this case. Frontline promptly investigated the loss, conducted an inspection, and inquired as to additional information pursuant to the Insureds’ Duties After Loss for months before making a claim determination based the terms of the Policy. Timely updates were made, including a denial letter and a response to the Insureds' Notice of Intent to Litigate. Therefore, no violations of §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) have occurred. Fla. Stat. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d): Denied. This allegation is without merit. Frontline conducted a reasonable investigation, including two physical inspections conducted by a professional engineer and an independent adjuster, based on the information available to Frontline. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f): Denied. This allegation is without merit. Frontline conducted a reasonable investigation, including two physical inspections conducted by a professional engineer and an independent adjuster, based on the information available to Frontline. Frontline also informed Insureds of their Duties After Loss and repeatedly requested information under the terms of the Policy. Frontline provided a denial letter listing its basis, including the failure to cooperate in the claims process by Insureds. Therefore, no violations of §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f) have occurred. Fla. Admin Code 69B-220.201(3)(B): Denied. This allegation is unsupported by the facts of this case. Frontline promptly investigated the loss, conducted two physical inspections conducted by a professional engineer and an independent adjuster, and made a claim determination based on the totality of information acquired within its investigation. There is nothing to suggest that Frontline did not treat this claim equally to others. Fla. Admin Code 69B-220.201(3)(C): Denied. This allegation is unsupported by the facts of this case. Frontline promptly investigated the loss, conducted two physical inspections conducted by a professional engineer and an independent adjuster, and made a claim determination based on the totality of information acquired within its investigation. There is nothing to suggest that Frontline approached this investigation, adjustment, and settlement negotiations in a manner prejudicial to the insured. Fla. Admin Code 69B-220.201(3)(E): Denied. This allegation is unsupported by the facts of this case. Frontline promptly investigated the loss, conducted two physical inspections conducted by a professional engineer and an independent adjuster, and made a claim determination based on the totality of information acquired within its investigation. There is nothing to suggest that Frontline did not handle this claim with honesty and integrity. Fla. Admin Code 69B-220.201(3)(F): Denied. This allegation is unsupported by the facts of this case. Frontline promptly investigated the loss, conducted two physical inspections conducted by a professional engineer and an independent adjuster, and made a claim determination based on the totality of information acquired within its investigation. There is nothing to suggest that Frontline did not act with dispatch and due diligence in achieving a proper disposition of this claim. As can be seen from the facts of this claim, the allegations in the CRN are baseless and wholly without merit. Thus, the CRN is purposely drafted in a manner that does not allow two physical inspections conducted by a professional engineer and an independent adjuster proper notice of the allegations or any meaningful opportunity to respond and/or evaluate the asserted claims. Based on the foregoing, the CRN is insufficient on its face and should be rejected. Talat Enterprises Inc. vs. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000); Lane v. Westfield Ins. Company, 862 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). The Insureds’ CRN shall state with specificity five expressly enumerated pieces information and such other information as the Department may require. As can be seen from the facts of this claim, this requirement is not met and the allegations in the CRN are baseless and wholly without merit. The CRN is purposely drafted in a manner that does not allow Frontline to receive proper notice of the facts supporting the Insureds’ allegations. Based on the foregoing and Florida law, the CRN is insufficient on its face. Talat Enterprises Inc. vs. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000); Lane v. Westfield Ins. Company, 862 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). In closing, Frontline’s actions in handling the Insureds’ claim were prompt, thorough, conducted in accordance with the Policy and Florida law, and most importantly, in good faith. Furthermore, Frontline complied with all obligations under the Policy and the Florida Statutes. Therefore, Frontline denies every allegation contained in the Notice. We trust this response adequately addresses the allegations of violation alleged in the CRN. In addition, you will find a copy of the response submitted to the Florida Department of Financial Services on its website. Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned if you have any questions regarding this matter or need anything further. Sincerely, /s/ Austin D. Miniard Austin D. Miniard
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