Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     808744
Filing Accepted:  2/27/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
JENNY CARR   First Name  
Street Address * 3240 ELKCAM BOULEVARD
City, State Zip * DELTONA, FL 32738
Email Address * JCARR0423@OUTLOOK.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   JENNY CARR   First Name  
Policy # * 2MR282553500 Claim #* 00104701980
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* PATNIK First Name * JENNIFER Initial
Street Address* 925 FEDERAL HWY
City, State Zip* BOCA RATON , FL 33432
Email Address * JPATNIK@KPATTORNEY.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 42978
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* DARRIUS MARZETTE
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
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)(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)(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.

Loss settlement provision
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

The carrier was immediately put on notice of the insureds’ property damage sustained due to water infiltrating the premises. Subsequently, the insureds prepared a loss package in the amount of $26,982.10 needed to restore the property back to its pre-loss condition. Whereas, the carrier has failed to prudently inspect the insureds’ property, come to a fair coverage determination and promptly pay the claim. The carrier improperly determined that the loss was not covered under the policy and wrongfully denied the claim. In turn, the insureds have complied with all of the carrier’s requests to date and the carrier has still failed to treat this claim with good faith. This intentional delay with the claim has led to direct prejudice of the insureds. About one hundred and thirty-five days have passed since the original date of loss. The carrier has still refused to pay the fully covered amount owed under the policy. The carrier is aware of the damage sustained by the insured’s property and has not taken any meaningful ensuing action. It is clear that the carrier is not treating the insureds with good faith claims conduct; failing to pay a claim clearly owed; not adjusting the claim and evaluating the loss properly, promptly and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to the insureds; failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims by its adjusters and placing the company’s interests before the insureds’ interests; refusing to pay the full amount owed to the insureds despite the fact that the carrier has been on notice of the damages and looking for ways to delay full recovery or any recovery to the insureds, when a reasonable carrier in a similar position would have tendered a full payment in accordance with both the policy language and statutory requirements. The carrier’s actions are in violation of Florida Statutes §§ 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a); 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), as well as Section I- Perils Insured Against, subsection 1, providing coverage for direct loss to property unless the damage was caused solely by an excluded or excepted cause of loss; and the loss payment provision under Section I- Conditions requiring payment of a claim within 90 days. All the aforementioned are part of what appears to be an ongoing pattern and practice of behavior of the carrier that it demonstrates a wanton and reckless disregard for the insureds’ rights and a pattern and practice of bad faith claims practices to its insureds across the state of Florida. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, the carrier must: 1.) Pay the complete covered loss in the amount of $26,982.10, less any prior payments and less any applicable policy deductible; and 2.) Pay the statutory interest on the amount of unpaid damages from the date of loss to the date payment is finally made. A copy of this letter and filed form submitted to the FDFS has been sent to the carrier. Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned or Sabrina Pacheco at (561)-892-9911if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Jennifer Patnik Attorney at Law
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
brian.koch@hklaw.com 04-25-2025 VIA UPLOAD onto DFS website Florida Department of Financial Services Division of Insurance Regulation Consumer Assistance / Civil Remedy Section Larson Building, 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0322 Re: CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE OF INSURER VIOLATION DOI File No.: 808744 Complainant: Jenny Carr Claim No.: 00104701980 Filed by: Jennifer Patnik, Esq. Reported DOL: October 20, 2024 Dear Sir or Madam: American Security Insurance Company (“American Security”) received the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation (“CRN”) submitted by Jennifer Patnik, Esq. on behalf of Jenny Carr (“Complainant”), that was accepted by the Department of Financial Services (the “Department”) on February 27, 2025. This matter relates to damages purportedly caused by a kitchen leak to which American Security assigned claim number 00104701980 (the “Claim”), which was reported under a lender-placed certificate bearing certificate number 2MR07292825535 (the “Certificate”) issued by American Security to Nationstar Mortgage LLC, its successors and/or assigns (the “Lender”), as the “Named Insured” and Complainant as the “Borrower” that insures the dwelling located at 3240 Elkcam Boulevard, Deltona, Florida 32738 (the “Property”), as more fully set forth therein, from May 1, 2024 through May 1, 2025. As a general matter, American Security objects to the validity of the CRN, as it is deficient on its face. The CRN lacks the specificity required by s. 624.155(3)(a), Florida Statutes. The CRN provides nothing more than vague, ambiguous and conclusory allegations regarding what Complainant believes to be American Security’s motivations, positions and business practices – none of which are true or supported by any facts. Florida law is clear that a claimant is required to state with specificity the “facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation,” to allow the insurer to understand and cure any purported violation. Longpoint Condo. Assn. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2005 WL 1315810 (N.D. Fla. 2005). A written CRN which is vague and “shotgun” in nature or is written in general terms fails the specificity requirement of the statute. See Heritage Corp. of South Fla. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, P.A., 580 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1300 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Rousso v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., 2010 WL 7367059 (S.D. Fla. 2010); Valenti v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America, 2006 WL 1627276 (M.D. Fla. 2006). The very purpose of the civil remedy notice, pursuant to Chapter 624, is to inform the insurer of alleged violations with specific information to encourage settlement of the subject claim. “The sixty-day window [as provided for in F.S. §624.155] is designed to be a cure period that will encourage payment of the underlying claim, and avoid unnecessary bad faith litigation.” Talat Enters., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). Notice sent to the Department of Insurance concerning settlement violation(s) is intended to serve as a basis for the Department to assist in the settling of claims and to monitor the insurance industry. Id. However, whenever a complainant provides little in the way of adequate notice, the statutory intent of the CRN is frustrated. On October 25, 2024, the same day as reporting a companion claim for damage allegedly caused by Hurricane Milton (which was assigned claim number 00104701972), Complainant’s public adjuster also reported damage to the kitchen at the Property that allegedly occurred on October 20, 2024. American Security acknowledged the Claim in writing the next day and assigned claim number 00104701980 to the Claim. On October 30, 2024, American Security inspected the Property and found no evidence of damage consistent with a sudden and accidental water leak under the kitchen sink. However, there was evidence of long-term damage and deterioration to the base cabinet, such as rotting, sinking, and staining. On November 8, 2024, American Security denied the Claim as there was no evidence of a sudden and accidental loss; there was only long-term damage, which is excluded from coverage by the Certificate. Specifically, the Certificate provides, in pertinent part, that the Certificate “do[es] not insure loss…caused by…constant or repeated seepage or leakage of water or steam over a period of weeks, months or years from within a plumbing, heating, air conditioning or automatic fire protective sprinkler system or from within a household appliance.” Moreover, any mitigation services provided to the Property are equally not covered as the Certificate provides coverage for “reasonable costs incurred by you for necessary measures taken solely to protect covered property from further damage, when the damage or loss is covered by a Peril Insured Against.” As there was no covered loss for alleged damage to the Property, there is also no coverage for any mitigation services purportedly provided by Profire LLC d/b/a National Mitigation Restoration. Despite American Security’s good faith investigation of the Claim, the Complainant lists a number of reasons for submitting the CRN, many of which are inaccurate and/or completely devoid of facts – which further reflects the boilerplate nature of the allegations being asserted against American Security. Specifically, Complainant cites statutory provisions under Fla. Stat. § 624.155 and Fla. Stat. § 626.9541, without any ultimate facts that support the empty and false accusations. As such, American Security rejects the same as vague and statutorily non-compliant, and further responds as follows: 624.155(1)(b)(1): Denied. American Security appropriately denied the Claim in accordance with the terms, conditions and exclusions of the Certificate. In so doing, American Security has acted fairly and honestly toward Complainant with due regard for her interests. The Complainant has provided absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation in the CRN. 624.155(1)(b)(3): Denied. American Security appropriately denied coverage for the Claim under the Certificate. Complainant has provided absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation in the CRN. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Denied. American Security has adopted and continues to implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. Moreover, American Security has never failed to adopt and implement these standards in such a way that would constitute a business practice. Complainant has provided absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation in the CRN. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b): Denied. American Security has never misrepresented facts or insurance policy provisions relating to the coverage at issue to Complainant. The Complainant has provided absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation in the CRN. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c): Denied. American Security had not failed to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. In fact, American Security confirmed notice of receipt of the Claim, inspected the Property, and sent its explanation of benefits letter appropriately denying the Claim within two weeks of first receiving notice of the Claim. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation have been provided by the Complainant in the CRN. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f): Denied. American Security appropriately denied coverage for the Claim and promptly sent correspondence explaining the details of its coverage determination to Complainant in its explanation of benefits letter. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation have been provided by the Complainant in the CRN. American Security denies all the allegations in the CRN as false, unfounded and completely devoid of merit or factual predicate. At no time has American Security ever acted in bad faith. At all times material to this Claim, American Security: (a) acted in good faith to investigate the Claim, acted fairly and honestly in its dealings with the Complainant and her representatives; (b) promptly investigated the Complainant’s Claim; (c) acknowledged and acted promptly in response to all communications with the Complainant; and (d) complied with its obligations in accordance with the terms of the subject insurance contract and Florida law. If you are in need of or seek any further information, please feel free to contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, /s/ Brian H. Koch cc: Jennifer Patnik, Esq. Joseph Menniti, 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