Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     808440
Filing Accepted:  2/25/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
GEORGE FERRA AND MARIA FERRA   First Name  
Street Address * 10252 SILVERADO CIRCLE
City, State Zip * BRADENTON, FL 34202
Email Address * CLAY@THEKRFIRM.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   GEORGE FERRA AND MARIA FERRA   First Name  
Policy # * P000149388 Claim #* 264043
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* KUHN First Name * CLAYTON Initial
Street Address* 2110 WEST PLATT STREET
City, State Zip* TAMPA , FLORIDA 33606
Email Address * CLAY@THEKRFIRM.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10117
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* ANY AND ALL PERSONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CLAIMS HANDLING FROM SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY DBA SECURITY FIRST FLORIDA
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
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)(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)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

THE POLICY LANGUAGE RELEVANT TO THE VIOLATIONS INCLUDES ALL APPLICABLE LOSS PAYMENT AND COVERAGE PROVISIONS OF POLICY NUMBER P000149388 INCLUDING THE DECLARATIONS PAGE AND ALL ENDORSEMENTS TO THE POLICY, WITH RESPECT TO COVERAGES A, B, C, AND D. ADDITIONALLY, ANY SECTIONS RELIED UPON BY THE INSURER IN ITS DENIAL TO FULLY PAY THE CLAIM, INCLUDING THE DUTIES IN THE EVENT OF LOSS PROVISIONS AND THE POLICY'S EXCLUSION OF COVERAGE PROVISIONS.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

George Ferra and Maria Ferra (hereinafter “Insureds”) are homeowners insured with an all-risks policy issued by Security First Insurance Company dba Security First Florida (hereinafter “Carrier”). On or about October 9, 2024, Insureds’ home located at 10252 Silverado Circle, Bradenton, Florida 34202 sustained significant damage as a result of a windstorm event. Specifically, Hurricane Milton created multiple openings to the roof of Insureds’ property. This resulted in interior and exterior water damage to various areas of the interior of Insureds’ property including but not limited to, the family room, screen enclosure, and gutters. The Loss is covered under Insureds’ policy issued by Carrier. Insureds promptly reported the claim and fully cooperated with all requests for inspections. Carrier assigned Claim No. 264043 to the loss. The Insureds have fully cooperated with Carrier’s investigation of the claim, including providing all requested documentation and complying with all post-loss policy conditions. Specifically, the Insureds, with assistance from their public adjuster, submitted an estimate for $114,694.41, which was a fair and reasonable assessment for the repair/replacement of damages. After reporting the claim, Carrier retained an unqualified and biased field adjuster to adjust the loss. This adjuster had a financial incentive to adjust the loss in a manner that would minimize Carrier’s losses. This adjuster performed a mere cursory inspection of the property. Instead of adjusting the claim fairly, honestly, in good faith, and with due regard for the Insureds’ interests, this adjuster made a conscious effort to ignore evidence of covered losses to the property. Worse still, Carrier failed to retain qualified experts necessary to identify the repairs necessary to restore the property to its pre-loss condition. Despite Insureds providing Carrier with a detailed estimate, Carrier failed to pay Insureds the amount necessary to repair/replace the damaged property, less the applicable deductible. Instead, Carrier gave Insureds a lowball estimate that failed to encompass all covered damages. The carrier only offered to pay $0.00, after applicable deductible of $6,000.00, a gross underpayment for all the damage associated with this claim. This has become a common business practice for Carrier. Under the circumstances surrounding this claim, had Carrier acted fairly and honestly toward the Insureds and with due regard for the Insureds’ interests, Carrier could and should have attempted in good faith to settle this claim. Carrier did not and, instead, dishonestly, and unfairly placed its own interests well ahead of those of the Insureds. In doing so, Carrier violated Section 624.155(1)(b)(1), Florida Statutes. Carrier’s use of unqualified and biased adjusters, and failure to retain experts necessary to identify the repairs necessary to restore the property to its pre-loss condition, evidence Carrier’s failure to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims in violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), Florida Statutes. Carrier’s use of unqualified and biased adjusters, and failure to retain experts necessary to identify the repairs necessary to restore the property to its pre-loss condition, evidence Carrier’s failure to conduct a reasonable investigation based upon available information. In denying full coverage for this claim without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information, Carrier has violated Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), Florida Statutes. By representing to Insureds that the Policy does not afford full coverage for this loss, Carrier is misrepresenting pertinent facts and/or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue, in violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), Florida Statutes. When applying the facts present here to Florida law, it is clear that Carrier is acting in bad faith. Florida Statute § 624.02 defines insurance as a contract whereby one undertakes to indemnify another or pay or allow a specified amount or a determinable benefit based on determinable contingencies. Inherent is the fact that payment must be made timely and promptly so that insureds may mitigate their damages and be put back into the position they were in prior to the loss as quickly as possible. Carrier has breached this duty by refusing to properly and timely adjust the loss. Moreover, Section 69B-220.201 of the Florida Administrative Code defines Carrier’s adjusters conduct here as an unfair claims settlement practice. Specifically, Section 69B-220.201(3) provides that “[a]n adjuster shall not approach investigations, adjustments, and settlements in a manner prejudicial to the insured” and that “[a]n adjuster shall make truthful and unbiased reports of the facts after making a complete investigation.” As detailed above, Carrier’s investigation and adjustment of this claim was done in a manner prejudicial to Insureds, was incomplete, and lacked truthful and unbiased reports of the facts. Carrier has more than enough information and is still refusing to accept coverage for the Insureds’ claim. This continued and repeated reckless claim delay and denial of coverage will result in a significant punitive damage award if a bad faith lawsuit is filed. Carrier can cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice and avoid a lawsuit for bad faith by immediately accepting full coverage under the subject insurance policy for this claim and by paying Insured’s estimate of $114,694.41, less applicable deductible and prior payments, which is the reasonable amount of the covered loss pursuant to the policy. A copy of this form has been submitted to the Florida Department of Financial Services who has transmitted the same to the following parties providing them notice of the filing of this Civil Remedy Notice: Security First Insurance Company dba Security First Florida.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
anthony.crylen@securityfirstflorida.com 05-01-2025 Via Electronic Filing: Florida Department of Financial Services Bureau of Consumer Assistance c/o: Civil Remedy Section Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0322 Via Email: Clayton Kuhn KUHN RASLAVICH, P.A 2110 WEST PLATT STREET TAMPA, FLORIDA 33606 CLAY@THEKRFIRM.COM Re: CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE OF INSURER VIOLATION Filing No.: 808440 Insured: George Ferra and Maria Ferra Insurer: Security First Insurance Company Claim No.:264043 Policy No.: P000272906 Date of Loss: 10/09/2024 Dear Sir or Madam: This correspondence is in response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (hereinafter referred to as the “CRN”) was filed by Clayton Kuhn on behalf of his clients, George Ferra and Maria Ferra hereinafter referred to as “Insured”). Please be advised that the undersigned represents the interests of Security First Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as “Security First”) with respect to the above-referenced matter. The Florida Department of Financial Services (hereinafter referred to as “Department”) assigned this CRN with an acceptance date of 2/25/2025 and DFS File No.:808440. This matter concerns a property damage claim made by the Insured pursuant to a homeowners’ insurance policy provided by Security First Policy No. P000149388 and assigned Claim No. 264043. As the basis for filing the CRN against Security First, George Ferra and Maria Ferra asserts in the “Reasons for Notice” section violations such as, Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer, and Unfair Trade Practice along with the following statutory 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 toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information. Security First welcomes this opportunity to respond to the CRN and denies each allegation contained therein. The allegations made in the CRN are premature, as the insureds have failed to perfect the claim for bad faith and the CRN does not meet the specificity requirement of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. This CRN does not sufficiently support the allegations stated above. As is standard procedure, upon the first notice of the claim, the subject property was dutifully inspected by Security First’s representatives, which was documented through photographs. Security First received notice on November 7, 2024, for the loss that allegedly occurred on October 9, 2024. The subject property was timely inspected on November 18, 2024, by Security First’s field adjuster and by vendor representative from ProClaim Engineering. Following the inspections, a coverage determination letter was sent to the insured and their representative advising of partial coverage, partial coverage denial. The coverage letter also advised: “Coverage is afforded for the interior damage reported in the amount of $2,113.95. Interest has been added due to the claim going over the 60-day timeframe in the amount of $53.78. The total amount of the settlement is $2,167.73 but falls below the policy’s hurricane deductible of $6000.” I. Perfecting a Claim for Bad Faith Security First specifically denies all allegations set forth in the Notice. Security First contends that the Notice should be rejected and returned by the Department of Financial Services as it is premature. Pursuant to statute, there is no potential violation until a breach of contract is established. § 624.1551, Florida Statutes. Accordingly, any Notice filed prior to a finding that Security First has breached the terms of the policy, is not ripe and is premature and thus fails to perfect the Insureds’ rights to pursue civil remedies under Florida Statutes. II. Specificity Requirement The Insured’s CRN violates multiple requirements set forth in the Florida courts’ jurisprudence for Civil Remedy Notices. In addition, it fails to meet even the most basic requirements of the Statute. Pursuant to the terms of the statute, (3)(a) As a condition precedent to bringing an action under this section, the department and the authorized insurer must have been given 60 days’ written notice of the violations. Notice to the authorized insurer must be provided by the department to the e-mail address designated by the insurer under s. 624.422. a. The notice shall be on a form provided by the department and shall state with specificity the following information, and such other information as the department may require (emphasis added): b. (3)(a) As a condition precedent to bringing an action under this section, the department and the authorized insurer must have been given 60 days’ written notice of the violations. Notice to the authorized insurer must be provided by the department to the e-mail address designated by the insurer under s. 624.422. i. The statutory provision, including the specific language of the statute, which the authorized insurer allegedly violated. ii. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation. iii. The name of any individual involved in the violation. iv. Reference to specific policy language that is relevant to the violation, if any. If the person bringing the civil action is a third-party claimant, she or he shall not be required to reference the specific policy language if the authorized insurer has not provided a copy of the policy to the third-party claimant pursuant to written request. v. A statement that the notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section. In interpreting this statute, courts have emphasized the importance of filing specific civil remedy notices. The civil remedy notice is “crucial to the procedural integrity of an action” under the Statute. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Clohessy, 32 F.Supp.2d 1328, 1333 (M.D. Fla. 1998). “It is, without a doubt, a condition that must be satisfied in order for one to perfect the right to sue under the statute.” Id. “In creating this statutory remedy for bad- faith actions, the Legislature provided this sixty-day window as a last opportunity for insurers to comply with their claim-handling obligations when a good-faith decision by the insurer would indicate that contractual benefits are owed.” Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 2000). Thus, the Notice cannot be “vague and ‘shotgun’ in nature,” rather than “the type of specific notice required by the statute that would allow [the insurer] an opportunity to cure.” Heritage Corp. of South Florida v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 580 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1299 (S.D. Fla. 2008). Because it is in derogation of the common law, Section 624.155(1)(b), Florida Statutes must be strictly construed. Talat, 753 So. 2d at 1283 (citing Baxter v. Royal Indem. Co., 285 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). To perfect the right to sue under the statute, an insured must specifically notify the insurer of any and all alleged violations claimed. Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 952 F.Supp. 773, 776 (M.D. Fla. 1996) (“Talat I”) See Fox v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., No. 8:16-CV-3254-T-23MAP, 2017 WL 1541294, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2017) (sufficiency means specificity). In Junior Julien v. United Property and Casualty Insurance Company, 311 So.3d 875, 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021), the Honorable Court stated: The Middle District of Florida was confronted with a civil remedy notice that was similarly broad in scope and concluded that listing nearly all policy provisions on the notice did not satisfy the statute. Fox v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., No. 8:16-CV-3254-T-23MAP, 2017 WL 1541294, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2017). The court explained that “[i]f the statute contained no specificity requirement, [then] the [insureds’] casual ‘reference’ to the entire insurance policy undoubtedly would suffice.” Id. But, the court continued, “the Legislature included ‘specific’ or a variant not once but twice in the statute.” Id. As a result, the insureds’ listing of whole sections of the insurance policy “appear[ed] to lack specificity.” Id. In Valenti, the District Court for the Middle District of Florida considered the practical consequences of an insured’s non-specific civil remedy notice. Valenti v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America, 2006 WL 1627276 (M.D. Fla. 2006). The plaintiff’s civil remedy notice included allegations that the defendant conducted an inadequate investigation. The plaintiff, however, failed to identify with the requisite specificity the defendant’s actions that were inadequate. The Middle District held that the plaintiff’s civil remedy notice was insufficient, and stated the following: [T]he civil remedy notice must be specific enough to provide insurers notice of the wrongdoing so the insurer can cure the same within sixty days. … Plaintiffs’ counsel, during the hearing in this matter, argued a civil remedy notice that states “you denied my claim” should be sufficient to place the insurer on notice of what was needed to be cured. Plaintiffs’ counsel further argued that it was up to the insurer, as the insurance expert, to decipher what actions needed to be cured. This argument, in this Court's estimation, is illogical and is counter to the purpose of the civil remedy notice. If a simple “you denied my claim” was sufficient to put insurers on notice, the sixty-day cure period would be little more than a guessing game with the insurer attempting to correctly guess what errors the insured claimed it made in the claims handling process, or risk defending a bad faith action. This surely is not what the legislature had in mind when it created the civil remedy notice. Accordingly, this Court finds that Plaintiffs allegation that Defendant failed to conduct an adequate investigation is insufficient to provide Defendant an opportunity to cure. Id. at *2. The guidance for an insured could not be clearer. “The purpose of the civil remedy notice is to give the insurer one last chance to settle a claim with its insured and avoid unnecessary bad faith litigation.” Lane v. Westfield Insurance Co., 862 So. 2d 774, 779 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Its purpose is not “to give the insured a right of action to proceed against the insurer even after the insured’s claim has been paid or resolved.” Id. Ultimately, conclusory allegations without facts fail to perfect a statutory bad faith claim. Merely alleging the bare minimum allegations is insufficient pursuant to Florida courts’ interpretations of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. III. Validity of allegations made by Clayton Kuhn on behalf of his clients, George Ferra and Maria Ferra The allegations made by Clayton Kuhn on behalf of his clients George Ferra and Maria Ferra lacks factual support and are untrue. Security First elects to use this section to respond to Counsel’s allegations that the following statutory provisions have been violated: Counsel and the insureds have alleged that Security First violated “Fla. Sta. 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.” This allegation is without basis, and therefore denied, as Security First conducted a prompt and thorough investigation in good faith. Security First received notice on November 7, 2024, for the loss that allegedly occurred on October 9, 2024. The subject property was timely inspected on November 18, 2024, by Security First’s field adjuster. Proclaim Engineering completed an inspection of the tile roof. No storm damage was found to the tile roof. The interior staining to the ceilings of the entry hallway and living room was due to rainwater intrusion through the deteriorated moisture barrier or flashing located above these areas. The coverage determination letter included the following specific and pertinent policy language: (SFI FL HO3 03 20 Homeowners 3 Special Form) SECTION I – PERILS INSURED AGAINST COVERAGE A – DWELLING and COVERAGE B – OTHER STRUCTURES We insure against risk of direct loss to property described in Coverages A and B only if that loss is a physical loss to property. We do not insure, however, for loss: 2. Caused by: h. Any of the following: Wear and tear, marring, deterioration; 1. Inherent vice, latent defect, mechanical breakdown; – EXCLUSIONS 2. We do not insure for loss to property described in Coverages A and B caused by any of the following. However, any ensuing loss to property described in Coverages A and B not excluded or excepted in this policy is covered. c. Faulty, inadequate or defective: (1) Planning, zoning, development, surveying, siting; (2) Design, specifications, workmanship, repair, construction, renovation, remodeling, grading, compaction; (3) Materials used in repair, construction, renovation or remodeling; or (4) Maintenance; of part or all of any property whether on or off the "residence premises." Counsel and the insureds have alleged that Security First violated “Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.” This allegation is without basis, and therefore denied, as Security First conducted a prompt and thorough investigation in good faith and On November 18, 2024 and a conclusive coverage determination letter was sent to the insured.. Counsel and the insureds have alleged that Security First violated “Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b): Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue.” This allegation is without basis, and therefore denied, as Security First conducted a prompt and thorough investigation in good faith. Following the receipt of inspections, Security First sent coverage determination letter with policy specific language to the insured and their public adjuster. IV. Conclusion At all times, Security First has acted in good faith in its handling of the claim, and it has acted fairly, honestly, and with due regard for the Insureds’ interest and in determining obligations to Insureds. Specifically, Security First has complied with its obligations under the applicable Florida Statutes and the applicable Security First Insurance policy. Security First specifically denies any claim for bad faith and argues that the insureds’ claim for bad faith is premature. Security First continues to reserve all its rights under the policy, at law and in equity. Regardless, Insureds’ conclusory allegations fail to place Security First on notice of any purported violations. Furthermore, the Civil Remedy Notice fails to properly identify, in good faith, how to cure the allegations set forth. The allegations are without basis. It is clear Security First properly handled and adequately investigated the claim. We hope that this response has answered any concerns regarding this matter. If the Department has any question concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Anthony Crylen Examiner/Litigation Specialist Adjuster License # P012449 Security First Insurance Company 1001 Broadway Avenue Ormond Beach, Florida 32714 Anthony.Crylen@securityfirstflorida.com Telephone Number: 386 868 1172
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