Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     809036
Filing Accepted:  2/28/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
AQUA PROPERTIES OF BREVARD, LLC,   First Name  
Street Address * 780 WEST AVE
City, State Zip * COCOA, FL 32927
Email Address * FIRM@FLORIDAINSLAW.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   AQUA PROPERTIES OF BREVARD, LLC,   First Name  
Policy # * SPPK0001955-05 Claim #* 10003006
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* CIOCCHETTI First Name * MICHAEL Initial
Street Address* 125 NORTH RIDGEWOOD AVENUE, SUITE 100
City, State Zip* DAYTONA BEACH , FLORIDA 32114
Email Address * FIRM@FLORIDAINSLAW.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   SAFEPOINT INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 15341
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* VALERIE WALKER
Type of Insurance * Commercial Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
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.
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)(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.

Coverage A: We will pay for direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property at the remises described in the Declarations caused by or resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss. 1. Covered Property: Covered Property, as used in this Coverage Part, means the type of property described in this section, A.1., and limited in A.2., Property Not Covered, if a Limit of Insurance is shown in the Declarations for that type of property.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

This complaint is made on behalf of the insureds, AQUA PROPERTIES OF BREVARD, LLC. and, CRAIG A. SATER, D.D.S., P.A. Further, this complaint is a statement that notice is hereby given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy pursuant to Florida Statute §624.155. In consideration of the premium paid to it, SAFEPOINT INSURANCE COMPANY (“Carrier”), issued a policy, Policy No. SPPK0001955-05 (“Policy”), to the Insureds where the Policy provided coverage for all losses, except those losses which were expressly excluded, for the property located at 780 West Ave, Cocoa, FL 32927 (“Insured Property”). The policy was in full force and effect at the time the damage occurred from Hurricane Helene, and the ensuing damages as a direct result thereof, to the Insured Property, on or about September 26, 2024. Thereafter, the Carrier was timely notified of the Loss. In particular, the Carrier was put on notice of covered direct damages and ensuing damages and of the request that a claim be opened pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Policy. Claim number 10003006 (“Claim”) was assigned to the Loss. The Carrier sent an adjuster to the Insured Property to perform an inspection. The Carrier performed a cursory inspection of the Insured Property and failed to retain unbiased experts necessary to trigger the cause of the Loss and covered repairs necessary to restore the Insured Property to its pre-loss condition. The Carrier deliberately denied the claim. The Carrier knows its aforementioned investigation is insufficient and that it has failed to provide proper payment to restore the property to its pre-loss condition. This inspection placed The Carrier on notice of the severity of the Loss. The Carrier subsequently denied the Insureds’ claim and issued no payment for the Loss. Thereafter, the insureds sought the assistance of a public adjuster who ensured the proper estimating of the loss and compliance with all Policy conditions. The public adjuster submitted a comprehensive estimate to the Carrier for the full scope of damages to the Insured Property. In addition, a Sworn Statement and Proof of Loss (“SPOL”) was provided, on or about February 12, 2025. The Carrier disregarded this comprehensive estimate and SPOL and, instead, denied the Claim. The Carrier has refused to reassess its denial of benefits and the basis of the denial and has refused to properly adjust and settle the Claim. The Carrier violated the provisions of Florida Statute §624.155(1)(b)(1) by failing to attempt in good faith to resolve this claim when, under all circumstances, it could and should have done so had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insureds with a due regard for their interest. When the Carrier was confronted with a comprehensive estimate and verifiable cause of Loss, the Carrier chose to deny the Insureds’ valid Claim. The Carrier violated the provisions of Florida Statute §626.9541(1)(i)(2) by materially misrepresenting to the Insureds that Policy coverage was unavailable for the Insureds’ Claim and Loss to the Insured Property. This misrepresentation was made in an attempt to deny the Insureds’ Claim and escape without paying for the full extent of substantial damage. The Carrier violated the provisions of Florida Statute §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) by failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. When confronted with a comprehensive estimate and verifiable cause of Loss, the Carrier apparently had no system or standards prepared or implemented which would allow it to evaluate the Claim as submitted by its Insureds. The Carrier violated the provisions of Florida Statute §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) by misrepresenting pertinent facts or Policy provisions relating to the coverage at issue. This has been discussed fully hereinabove. The Carrier violated the provisions of Florida Statute 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) by denying the Insureds’ Claim without conducting reasonable investigation into the basis for the Claim. The Carrier violated the provisions of Florida Statute 626.9541 (1)(i)(3)(f) by failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the Insureds of the basis in the Policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for denial of the Claim. The Carrier can cure these violations by payment, within 60 days of the date hereof, of all funds contractual owed to the Insured under the terms and conditions of the Policy.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
taylor@floridainslaw.com 08-20-2025 The Carrier has resolved the Civil Remedy Notice to the satisfaction of the Insureds, and the Insureds hereby withdraw the instant CRN.
mbakas@safepointins.com 04-29-2025 April 29, 2025 VIA EMAIL: FIRM@FLORIDAINSLAW.COM Michael Ciocchetti, Esq. 125 N. Ridgewood Avenue, Suite 100 Daytona Beach, FL 32114 RE: Insured: Aqua Properties of Brevard, LLC Claim Number: 10003006 Policy: SPPK0001955-05 Date of Loss: 9/26/24 CRN Filing Number: 809036 Dear Sir/Madam: This is the formal response of SafePoint Insurance Company (“SafePoint”) to the purported Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (“Purported Notice”) that was filed on behalf of Aqua Properties of Brevard, LLC (“Complainant” / “Insured”). The Florida Department of Financial Services accepted the Purported Notice, in form only, on February 28, 2025. The Purported Notice was filed in connection with Complainant’s insurance claim for property damage. The Purported Notice names SafePoint and alleges Claim Denial and Unfair Trade Practice, supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 626.9541(1)(i)(2), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), Florida Statutes. The Purported Notice is a legal nullity for the reasons discussed below. ^ SafePoint specifically denies each and every allegation contained in the Purported Notice. Additionally, SafePoint denies that it violated these or any statutes, Florida law or policy provisions regarding the claim adjustment of this matter. ^1 SafePoint reserves all (and waives none) of its rights or defenses, including its right to assert additional deficiencies in the Purported Notice. Under Section 624.155(3), Florida Statutes, a claimant must file a notice with the Florida Department of Financial Services (“the Department”) at least 60 days before filing a Statutory “bad faith” lawsuit. This notice is commonly referred to as a “civil remedy notice” (“CRN”). Section 624.155(3), Florida Statutes sets out five pieces of information which must be included in a CRN: 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 the violation; 3. The name of any individual involved in the violation; 4. 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; and 5. A statement that the notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section. The statute also provides that, in addition to these five requirements, the CRN shall be “on a form provided by the [Department] and shall state with specificity . . . such other information as the department may require.” (emphasis added); The Florida Supreme Court has held that Section 624.155, Florida Statutes “must be strictly construed.” Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1283 (Fla. 2000). Strict construction is appropriate as “this statute is in derogation of the common law.” Id. When interpreting a statute in derogation of the common law, “[a] court will presume that such a statute was not intended to alter the common law other than as clearly and plainly specified in the statute.” Time Ins. Co., Inc. v. Burger, 712 So. 2d 389, 393 (Fla. 1998). Accordingly, such an interpretation would mean that statutory bad faith cases cannot proceed unless the claimant has specifically complied will all statutory requirements. After the promulgation of this statute, the Department created a CRN form: Form DFS-10-363. Form DFS-10-363 lays out 15 requirements: 1. Complainants Name; 2. Complainants Address; 3. Complainants E-mail address; 4. Complainant type (Insured or otherwise); 5. Insured’s Name; 6. Insurance Policy Number; 7. Insurance Claim Number; 8. Attorney’s Name; 9. Attorney’s Address; 10. Attorney’s E-mail Address; 11. Type of Insurer (authorized or otherwise); 12. Name of Insurer; 13. Address of Insurer; 14. Type of Insurance (Commercial Property & Casualty or otherwise); and 15. Reason for Notice. As these requirements are all information required by the Department, according to Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, they each must be stated with specificity. The Notice fails to meet the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 624.155 on several grounds. Deficiency #1 The Purported Notice lists the Insured as “AQUA PROPERTIES OF BREVARD, LLC” and fails to list the additional insured on the property, “CRAIG A. SATER, D.D.S., P.A.” Thus, the Purported Notice is invalid for noncompliance with Section 624.155(3)(b)(3), Florida Statutes. This deficiency applies to all allegations in the Purported Notice. Deficiency #2 Section 624.155(3)(b)(4), Florida Statutes, requires the CRN to reference 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. The Complainant is the Insured and not a third-party claimant; therefore, the Purported Notice must include specific language from the subject policy that is relevant to the alleged violations. It does not. Rather, the Purported Notice lists vague headings and overbroad language from an unknown insurance policy. Thus, the Purported Notice is invalid for noncompliance with Section 624.155(3)(b)(4), Florida Statutes. This deficiency applies to all allegations in the Purported Notice, including but not limited to Claim Denial and Unfair Trade Practice, supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 626.9541(1)(i)(2), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), Florida Statutes. On March 3, 2021, the Fourth District Court of Appeal issued a relevant opinion in Junior Julien v. United Property and Casualty Insurance Company, No. 4D19-2763. In Julien, the insured appealed the circuit court’s dismissal of his lawsuit against his insurer, finding that the insured’s Civil Remedy Notice (“CRN”) failed to satisfy the statutory requirement that an insured “state with specificity” the policy language and the statutory provisions at issue. In his CRN, the insured cited numerous statutory provisions and listed nearly every provision in the insurance policy. On appeal, the Fourth District affirmed the dismissal and agreed with the circuit court that the CRN failed to specify the statutory and policy provisions at issue. Like the CRN in Julien, the Purported Notice fails to “state with specificity” the policy language at issue. Deficiency # 3 Section 624.155(3)(b)(2), Florida Statutes, requires that the CRN state with specificity the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation. The Purported Notice does not supply specific facts or circumstances that explain the allegations. Rather, the Purported Notice asserts general allegations consisting of conclusory and inaccurate statements rather than specific allegations of fact regarding any alleged misconduct or statutory violations. For example, the Purported Notice states, “The Carrier performed a cursory inspection of the Insured Property and failed to retain unbiased experts necessary to trigger the cause of the Loss and covered repairs necessary to restore the Insured Property to its pre-loss condition.” However, these statements are conclusory, inaccurate and without a factual basis. This is a claim for roof and interior damage to the property that was late reported on September 30, 2024, three (3) days after the alleged date of loss, September 26, 2024. On October 17, 2024, SafePoint retained independent adjuster Choice Solutions Services to promptly inspect the subject property and document any visible damage. The inspection report noted numerous tiles with corner cracks, as well as damage to the front tiles, exterior cladding and a missing sign panel seen on a 2022 Google earth photo. Also observed were numerous adhesive repairs. To assist with the investigation and cause and origin of damage, SafePoint retained Forensic Engineering Company (“FEC”), to inspect the property on October 30, 2024. FEC noted that strong winds capable of damaging a well-maintained tile roof did not occur on or around the reported storm event date. Historical imagery, including an August 2022 Google Earth photo, revealed pre-existing damage to the front tiles, exterior cladding, and missing sign panel. A 2019 Google Street photo also confirmed pre-existing damage to broken tiles on the west elevation. Missing tiles at the southern elevation predate the reported date of loss (DOL), while those on the northern elevation are recent, caused by progressive deterioration of the underlying wooden components. Cracks in approximately 90 tiles resulted from material shrinkage, thermal cycling, and foot traffic during prior repairs, not wind-related damage. The low-slope roof shows age-related wear, including exposed fibers and seam separations, but no detachment or peeling was observed, indicating environmental exposure over time rather than wind damage. Cracking in mortar packs was attributed to normal thermal cycling, not wind. Interior stains and paint delamination above the reception room predate the reported date of loss. These stains are located below the low-slope roof, which shows evidence of prior repairs. The stains were previously painted over, and no storm-related openings were observed that could have caused moisture intrusion. In summary, no wind-related damage occurred on the reported storm event date, as extensive investigations and historical imagery confirmed pre-existing wear, age-related deterioration, material shrinkage, thermal cycling, foot traffic, and prior repairs as the causes of the roof's condition and interior issues. The Policy does not provide coverage for physical loss or damage due to damage due to wear and tear and thermal movement and to damage that occurred prior to Policy inception. Further, the Policy does not cover any ensuing water damage to the interior unless there is a storm created opening that caused damage. As such, on November 13, 2024, contrary to the Purported Notice erroneous assertion, “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” the Complainant was notified in writing and provided a detailed explanation as to why there was not a covered peril under the Policy in accordance with the investigation and the Policy terms and conditions. In the coverage determination letter, SafePoint advised Complainant, if there was additional information to consider, to provide that information in writing. To date, nothing was provided to support a reconsideration of the claim determination. Further, it is SafePoint’s position that Insured failed to comply with their post-loss duties as required under the Policy including but not limited to the failure to provide prompt notice, failure to show the damaged property, and failure to protect the property. Finally, the Notice makes boilerplate recitations of statutes and conclusory statements without the requisite specificity. Specificity is of particular importance for this Notice as Complainant generally alleges that SafePoint “[m]isrepresent[ed] pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to the coverages at issue.” However, the Notice does not set forth any facts regarding any misrepresentations made by SafePoint and does not identify the person or persons who made such misrepresentations. It is evident that the statement of facts falls short of the specificity required by Fla. Stat. §624.155. The above noted deficiencies apply to all allegations in the Purported Notice, including but not limited to Claim Denial and Unfair Trade Practice, supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 626.9541(1)(i)(2), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), Florida Statutes. Deficiency # 4 Finally, the Complainant failed to respond to each of the fields set forth on the DFS Form with the requisite specificity and as outlined herein as well as including but not limited to, the use of the attorney’s firm’s email address, “FIRM@FLORIDAINSLAW.COM” for that of the Complainant. Therefore, the Purported Notice is legally deficient and fails to satisfy the condition precedent to filing a bad faith action. See Pin Pon, 2020 WL 6588379; 2021 WL 824438. STATUTORY ALLEGATIONS 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. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 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. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b): Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d): Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 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. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. The allegations set forth in the Purported Notice are denied as they are mere conclusory allegations unsupported by facts, devoid of logic and intended solely to tarnish SafePoint’s name and reputation. SafePoint has at all times, acted fairly, honestly and in good faith in its dealings with the Complainant. While an insurance carrier is required to settle claims that should be settled, it is not required to settle claims that are legitimately contested. SafePoint unequivocally denies each and every allegation asserted in the Purported Notice. At no time has SafePoint breached any duty to the Complainant. AN INSURER IS NOT REQUIRED TO PAY WHATEVER AMOUNT THE INSURED DEMANDS. Finally, SafePoint retained an independent field adjuster and an engineer who conducted an inspection of the subject property to investigate the Insured’s claim. Thereafter, Safepoint made a coverage decision pursuant to all applicable policy language and statutes. Please be advised, by this letter, SafePoint neither waives, nor is estopped, from asserting any and all rights it may have in law, or, under the terms of the Policy. In fact, SafePoint hereby again, expressly, and specifically, reserves all of its rights, without exception or limitation. If you have any questions or concerns with this response, or, regarding any other matter, please contact me in writing. Sincerely, /s/ Ari A. Zeltzer Ari A. Zeltzer, Esq. Staff Counsel SafePoint Insurance Cc: Florida Department of Financial Services
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