Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     809058
Filing Accepted:  2/28/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
TJS RENTAL OF FLAGLER, LLC,   First Name  
Street Address * 909-911 S CENTRAL AVE
City, State Zip * FLAGLER BEACH, FL 32136
Email Address * FIRM@FLORIDAINSLAW.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   TJS RENTAL OF FLAGLER, LLC,   First Name  
Policy # * 4491692283 Claim #* 05000002591
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*   FRONTLINE INSURANCE UNLIMITED COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10074
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* MAR DUKES
Type of Insurance * Commercial 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)(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.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

A. Coverage: We will pay for direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property at the premises 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 Declaration 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 insured, TJS Rental of Flagler. LLC. 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, the carrier, FRONTLINE INSURANCE UNLIMITED D/B/A FRONTLINE INSURANCE (“Carrier”), issued a policy, Policy No. 4491692283, to TJS Rental of Flagler. LLC (“Insured”) where the policy provided coverage for all losses, except those losses which were expressly excluded, for the property located at 909-911 S Central Ave, Flagler Beach, FL 32136 (“Insured Property”). The policy was in full force and effect at the time the damage occurred from Hurricane Milton, and the ensuing damages as a direct result thereof, to the Insured Property, on or about October 9, 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 05000002591 (“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 scope the entirety of the Loss and covered repairs necessary to restore the Insured Property to its pre-loss condition. This was done deliberately by the Carrier to undervalue portions of 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. Thereafter, the insured 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 January 23, 2025. The Carrier disregarded this comprehensive estimate and SPOL and, instead, underpaid the Claim. The Carrier has refused to reassess its payment of benefits and the basis of the payment 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 insured 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 underpay the Insured’s valid Claim for extensive damages that exceed the amount paid. The Carrier violated the provisions of Florida Statute §626.9541(1)(i)(2) by materially misrepresenting to the Insured that Policy coverage was unavailable for the Insured’s Claim and Loss to the Insured Property. This misrepresentation was made in an attempt to underpay the Insured’s 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 Insured. The Carrier violated the provisions of Florida Statute §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) by misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to the coverage at issue. This has been discussed fully hereinabove. 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 04-08-2026 The Carrier has resolved the Civil Remedy Notice to the satisfaction of the Insured, and the Insured hereby withdraws the instant CRN.
olombana@salehiboyer.com 04-24-2025 VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION: civilremedy@myfloridacfo.com Florida Department of Insurance Civil Remedy Section 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Re: Complainant: TJS Rental of Flagler, LLC Claim #: 05000002591 Policy #: 4491692283 CRN filing No.: 809058 CRN filing date: February 28, 2025 Notice Against: FRONTLINE INSURANCE UNLIMITED COMPANY To Whom It May Concern at The Department of Financial Services: With this correspondence, Frontline Insurance Unlimited Company (“FRONTLINE”) responds to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (“CRN”) filed by TJS Rental of Flagler, LLC (“Complainant” and/or “Insured”) against FRONTLINE INSURANCE UNLIMITED COMPANY. First, the Notice is statutorily deficient. Section 624.155(3)(b), Fla. Stat., requires a Civil Remedy Notice to provide “with specificity” each of the following: (1) the statutory provision allegedly violated, including the specific language of the statute; (2) the facts and circumstances giving rise to a violation of the statutes referenced in the Notice; (3) the name of any individual involved in the alleged violation; and (4) the specific policy language that is relevant to the alleged violation. Accordingly, to be valid, the Civil Remedy Notice must be specific enough factually so as to provide an insurer with the opportunity to adequately respond to and, if necessary, timely cure the alleged violations within sixty days. See Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So.3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (a civil remedy notice is facially invalid where the insured fails to identify the specific statute and specific policy provisions relevant to the alleged violations); Heritage Corp. of S. Fla. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 580 F.Supp.2d 1294 (S.D. Fla. 2008). For these reasons, the Civil Remedy Notice filed on behalf of the Complainant fails to comply with the requirements of § 624.155(3)(b). FRONTLINE conducted a thorough review of its handling of the Complainant’s allegations and the Policyholder’s claim. FRONTLINE denies that it has violated any of the statutes referenced in the CRN. At all times, FRONTLINE has acted in good faith, fairly and honestly toward the Complainant and with due regard for their interest. FRONTLINE also argues that the CRN utterly fails to describe any of the alleged violations and fails to provide any information such as facts and circumstances which would allow FRONTLINE to identify and correct the alleged violations. The Complainant alleges violations of the following statutory provisions: 624.155(1)(b)(1); 626.9541(1)(i)(2); 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a); 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) FRONTLINE denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statutes. FRONTLINE specifically denies each and every one of the Complainant’s allegations that it violated any of the above referenced statutes. In addition to the allegations specifically denied above, FRONTLINE generally denies all allegations presented in this CRN as FRONTLINE has not violated any statute or rule. CRN MUST BE DISMISSED The CRN must be dismissed because it fails to allege specific facts to support any of the statutory violations asserted. The Notice relies on generalized legal conclusions without identifying dates, documents, communications, or conduct that would place FRONTLINE on notice of any actionable wrongdoing. Next, the CRN requires that the Complainant “pursuant to section 624.155, F.S., please indicate all statutory provisions alleged to have been violated.” The CRN filed in this matter includes almost every statutory provision that could be claimed against an insurance company, regardless of whether they are relevant or applicable to the alleged facts contained in the Notice. Because the Civil Remedy Notice fails to allege any specific facts and/or circumstances in support of its allegations, FRONTLINE is unable to properly respond; as such, the CRN should be rejected and returned. The CRN is wholly devoid of any factual allegations relating to the monetary amount of any claims, or any reference to communications (or lack thereof) possibly giving rise to any alleged violation. See Rousso v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., No. 10-cv-20554, 2010 WL 7367059, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 13, 2010) (“In this case, the Plaintiffs do not explain how or identify which claims or suits the Defendant responded to in a manner that was contrary to good faith, unfair, or dishonest. This vagueness continues in the Plaintiffs' claim that the Defendant failed to respond to repeated pleas for assistance.”). These glaring deficiencies fail to apprise FRONTLINE of the nature of any purported violation and cannot satisfy the statutory standard of “pleading the facts and circumstances” giving rise to the violation with specificity. The CRN also fails to set forth the applicable policy language or the policy provisions that have been violated. The CRN then identifies Section 624.155(1)(b)(1), Florida Statutes, which addresses an insurer’s alleged failure 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 toward its insured. However, the CRN fails to allege any specific facts identifying when a settlement opportunity was presented to FRONTLINE, what amount was demanded, how it was supported, or how FRONTLINE allegedly failed to respond in good faith. The CRN vaguely references the submission of a public adjuster’s estimate and a sworn proof of loss but does not explain how those documents overcame the deductible, addressed the exclusions outlined in FRONTLINE’s prior correspondence, or responded to multiple Requests for Information issued by FRONTLINE on November 11, 2024, January 23, 2025, and February 10, 2025. Without the benefit of supporting documentation, FRONTLINE was not in a position to evaluate or pay additional amounts. The engineer retained by FRONTLINE, Grindley Williams Engineering, later confirmed that the majority of the alleged damages were caused by long-term deterioration, pre-existing wear, or unrelated plumbing failures. There is no factual support in the CRN demonstrating that FRONTLINE failed to act in good faith, or that it handled the claim in a manner inconsistent with Florida law or industry standards. FRONTLINE’s coverage determination was documented in detailed correspondence dated April 23, 2025, outlining the engineering findings, scope of covered wind-related damage, and the basis for denial of non-covered items. That letter was provided to Complainant and clearly explained the reasoning behind the claim decision, consistent with Florida law and the terms of the policy. As to Section 626.9541(1)(i)(2), which prohibits material misrepresentations made for the purpose of affecting settlement on less favorable terms, the CRN does not identify any actual misstatement made by FRONTLINE to the Insured, nor does it allege the date, content, or recipient of any such alleged misrepresentation. The CRN merely states that FRONTLINE "materially misrepresented that coverage was unavailable" but provides no specifics whatsoever. In reality, FRONTLINE accepted coverage for limited wind damage and advised the Insured of the deductible application. Where damages were denied, the reasoning was clearly laid out and supported by applicable exclusions (e.g., no storm-created openings for interior damage, long-term wear and maintenance-related issues for roofing and windows) and supported by FRONTLINE’s engineer inspection. There is no indication that FRONTLINE misstated any material fact or policy term during the course of the investigation or communications with the Insured. Regarding Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), the CRN makes a broad claim that FRONTLINE failed to adopt and implement standards for claims handling, but does not describe what standard was missing, or how the investigation was flawed. This type of vague assertion does not satisfy the statutory requirement to describe the "facts and circumstances" of the alleged violation. Similarly, the CRN alleges a violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), alleging that FRONTLINE misrepresented policy provisions. However, the CRN does not identify any specific misrepresented provision or explain how any communication from FRONTLINE constituted a misrepresentation. The CRN does not identify any communication in which FRONTLINE misrepresented policy language or factual findings. There is no factual or legal basis to support the claim that FRONTLINE misrepresented any provision of the policy. Furthermore, contrary to the requirement to “describe the facts and circumstances giving rise to the insurer’s violation as you understand them at this time,” the CRN simply recites generic legal conclusions. These assertions are unsupported by any evidence and are insufficient under Florida law. Additionally, the CRN fails to identify specific policy language relevant to any alleged violation. Blanket references to “Coverage” without citation to any specific provision renders the Civil Remedy Notice deficient. The allegations set forth in the CRN are denied as they are mere conclusory allegations, unsupported by fact, and are intended solely to pressure a settlement and tarnish FRONTLINE’s reputation. FRONTLINE, at all times, acted fairly, honestly and in good faith in its dealings with the Complainant. FRONTLINE did not engage in unfair settlement practices nor did FRONTLINE fail to promptly settle the claim or attempt to settle the claim in order to influence settlement under a different portion of the policy. FRONTLINE at no time misrepresented any pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions. FRONTLINE conducted a reasonable and prudent investigation of the claim and acted upon all communications from the Complainant. Finally, FRONTLINE promptly and appropriately communicated with the Complainant and provided explanations for the actions and decisions that were made. FRONTLINE retained an independent adjuster and engineer, conducting inspections of the subject property to investigate the Complainant’s claim. As it relates to the facts of the claim, FRONTLINE received notice of the alleged loss following Hurricane Milton. Multiple inspections of the property were conducted, including by both an independent field adjuster and a licensed forensic engineer retained by FRONTLINE to evaluate the scope and cause of the reported damage. Throughout the investigation, FRONTLINE maintained consistent communication with the Insured and its representatives, including issuing several written requests for documentation necessary to evaluate the supplemental claim—such as itemized estimates, photographic evidence, and repair invoices. Despite these efforts, the documentation received to date has been insufficient to fully support the scope and valuation of the damages claimed. The above demonstrates quite clearly that FRONTLINE acted in good faith, acted fairly and honestly, acknowledged and acted promptly upon receipt of the claim, attempted to determine coverage for the claim pursuant to the terms of the policy, took reasonable steps to investigate the claim, communicated reasonably with the Complainant about the claim, and provided the Complainant a reasonable explanation for each of its actions. Additionally, the CRN contains “cures” for the alleged defects; however, the listed cures are improper pursuant to Florida case law, specifically Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 753 So.2d 1278, 1281 (Fla. 2000). The Talat court held that a “cure” under §624.155 must relate only to the payment of the contractual amount due under the policy. The CRN vaguely references a comprehensive estimate and sworn proof of loss but fails to identify the specific amount allegedly owed, or to provide any factual or evidentiary support for its valuation of the claim. FRONTLINE issued its updated coverage letter on April 23, 2025, which identifies the covered damage confirmed through a forensic engineering inspection and applies the deductible according to the policy. A copy of the consultant’s estimate was enclosed, and the letter invited the Insured to submit documentation for any supplemental damages to be evaluated. This correspondence directly refutes the claim that FRONTLINE failed to act in good faith or issue an appropriate cure. In closing, FRONTLINE first believes that the CRN should be rejected and returned by the Department of Financial Services due to its failure to comply with Florida Statute § 624.155, Florida Statute § 626.9541, and Florida case law, and regardless of the rejection, FRONTLINE denies all allegations contained in the CRN and submits that there are no violations. While this response is meant to be comprehensive, FRONTLINE based the above-mentioned statements upon the limited information provided in the CRN and the information FRONTLINE has been provided to date. If the Complainant feels that FRONTLINE is not in possession of all the facts, please provide such additional information as soon as possible. In addition to this formal response, FRONTLINE has already provided a detailed, written coverage decision in the form of a Letter of Benefit Determination and Partial Denial issued on April 23, 2025. That letter reflects the findings of the claim investigation and clearly identifies the extent of covered and non-covered damage. It further invited the Complainant to submit documentation for supplemental review. The CRN fails to acknowledge the existence of that letter and does not provide any facts to dispute its conclusions or the engineering findings upon which they were based. FRONTLINE’s response is based on the information currently available and is not intended to be exhaustive. Nothing herein should be construed as a waiver of any policy terms, conditions, or defenses available in law or equity. We trust that this response addresses the allegations of insurer violation alleged in the CRN. Should you have any questions regarding this matter or need anything further, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Regards, Oscar Lombana, Esquire On behalf of Frontline Insurance Unlimited Company (“Frontline”)
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