Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     809110
Filing Accepted:  3/3/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
NIXON   First Name   VALERIE
Street Address * 2371 LANDINGS CIR
City, State Zip * BRADENTON, FL 34209
Email Address * SERVICE@PROPERTYPEOPLELAW.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   NIXON   First Name   VALERIE
Policy # * 2499543182 Claim #* 0100013177
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* ILANI First Name * DANIEL Initial
Street Address* 80 SW 8TH STREET, SUITE 2590
City, State Zip* MIAMI , FLORIDA 33130
Email Address * SERVICE@PROPERTYPEOPLELAW.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):* ALL ADJUSTERS, SUPERVISORS, MANAGERS, ATTORNEYS, AND INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH AND/OR RETAINED BY FIRST PROTECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY CONCERNING THE CLAIM AT ISSUES; FIRST PROTECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY’S DESK ADJUSTER(S); FIRST PROTECTIVE INSURANCE C
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
Claim Delay
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.
624.155(1)(b)(2) Making claims payments to insureds or beneficiaries not accompanied by a statement setting forth the coverage under which payments are being made.
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)(e) Failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and, as to partial coverage, the dollar amount or extent of coverage, or failing to provide a written statement that the claim is being investigated, upon the written request of the insured within 30 days after proof-of-loss statements have been completed.
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.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g) Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h) Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i) Failing to pay personal injury protection insurance claims within the time periods required by s. 627.736(4)(b).
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

FIRST PROTECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY failed to adequately adjust and pay the claim covered under the subject insurance policy. Specifically, but not limited to, FIRST PROTECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY failed to properly apply the Loss Settlement and Loss Payment provisions of the policy. In addition to the policy sections specifically cited herein, any endorsements or changes to said sections are relevant to the Insured’s claim for civil remedy. There may be additional policy language relevant to this violation that may be discovered.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

FIRST PROTECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY (hereinafter the “Insurance Company”) issued a homeowners insurance policy to its insured, VALERIE & MATTHEW NIXON (the “Insured”), for the insured property located at 2371 Landings Cir, Bradenton, FL 34209. The subject Policy afforded various types of coverages including coverage for damage to dwelling, other structures, personal property, and for loss of use. On or about October 10, 2024, while the subject Policy was in full force and effect, the Insured’s home was damaged as a result of a covered loss. The Insured subsequently notified the Insurance Company of this loss. Thereafter, the Insurance Company acknowledged the loss and assigned claim number 0100013177 to the loss. The Insured complied with all policy conditions and cooperated with the Insurance Company’s investigation efforts. The Insurance Company performed a cursory inspection and failed to retain the unbiased experts necessary to adequately inspect the property to restore the property to its pre-loss condition. Shortly after, the insurance company denied this loss based upon an unqualified evaluation of the damages. Notably, the Insurance Company failed to retain an expert to inspect the property to fully evaluate this claim, relying solely on an inadequate inspection concerning a subject matter and claim their representative is ill-equipped and unqualified to properly evaluate. The Insured and Insured’s representative provided the Insurance Company with all claim-related documents including an estimate to repair covered damages in the amount of $203,889 and other supporting documentation and/or information. Nonetheless, the Insurance Company continues to disregard and ignore the Insured’s claim and request for adequate payment. The Insurance Company has failed to issue proper payment for the claim and has failed to issue sufficient payment to compensate the Insured for damages and repairs covered by the policy and held to be contractually covered by Florida law. The Insured provided the Insurance Company with documentation evaluating the loss, and rather than issuing the proper payment or attempting to reach an agreement with its Insured, the Insurance Company is delaying and denying the claim. Upon information and belief, the Insurance Company performs the subject actions as a business practice, including delaying the claim and/or issuing insufficient payments in an attempt to dissuade its insured from pursuing the claim to the detriment of its insured to increase financial profits. Based upon self-serving conclusions regarding the cause of loss, the Insurance Company’s conclusions are disconcerting because they are demonstrably incorrect. Further, they directly conflict with the only first-hand accounts of the loss. To be clear, the Insured had personal knowledge of the condition of the property prior to the date of the loss and the amounts owed to make the necessary repairs. That said, the Insurance Company’s refusal to properly investigate, adjust, and fully compensate the Insured for their claim evidences the Insurance Company’s violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), Florida Statutes, which requires the Insurance Company to “adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.” All available information leads to one conclusion—the Insured’s property was damaged by a covered cause of loss for which the Insured is entitled to full and complete compensation. The Insurance Company’s obligation to promptly settle the Insured’s claim is undeniable, and therefore, the Insurance Company has also violated sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), Florida Statutes. The Insurance Company’s conduct is egregious because the Insurance Company purposely ignored relevant facts, even facts from its own experts, that would have confirmed coverage for the Insured’s loss to avoid having to compensate the Insured for damages. To make matters even worse, the Insurance Company has failed to timely respond to the Insured and issue payment for the damages to the property to allow necessary repairs. The actions taken by the Insurance Company in the handling and adjustment of the Insured’s claim are willful, wanton, and in disregard for the rights of the Insured, and have occurred with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice in violation of the law. The practice includes the Insurance Company’s ongoing inaction of ignoring relevant and accessible information that supports coverage in order to avoid compensating its Insured for covered losses. To be clear, the recent ruling in Fortune v. First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Insurance, out of Florida’s 2nd District Court of Appeal, clears up what this carrier must do the cure this CRN. Similar to here, In Fortune, the Insureds timely filed a claim with their homeowners insurance policy upon suffering damage to their property. The Insurer investigated the claim and denied, contending that the amount of damage did not exceed the Insureds’ deductible. Upon presenting the public adjuster’s estimate and all other materials to the insurance company, the Insurer invoked the appraisal process under the policy.Thereafter, the Insureds filed a Civil Remedy Notice alleging that the insurer made a lowball offer and “flagrantly breached” its duty to attempt in good faith to settle claims, under applicable Florida statutes. Additionally, the Insureds alleged that the Insurer refused to reassess its payment of benefits and the basis for payment and that the Insurer “turn[ed] a blindeye and refuse[d] to properly adjust and settle the claim.” Noteworthy in Fortune is that although the Homeowners' CRN did not state a specific cure amount, it did state that they had provided their public adjustor's estimate to the Insurer which covered "the full scope of necessary repairs to the direct and ensuing damages." Thus, the Insured had the public adjuster's estimate and knew the amount the Homeowners sought. Neither the statute nor this court's precedent requires the CRN to contain a specific amount sought to cure the alleged bad faith. See § 624.155(3)(b); see Hunt v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 112 So. 3d 547, 549 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (recognizing that an appraisal award satisfies the condition precedent of "a determination of liability and extent of damages owed"). In addition to the above statutory violations, the Insurance Company’s adjuster violated the following ethical requirements of Florida Administrative Code 69B-220.201. (3) Code of Ethics…An adjuster shall put the duty for fair and honest treatment of the claimant above the adjuster’s own interests in every instance. The following are standards of conduct that define ethical behavior, and shall constitute a code of ethics that shall be binding on all adjusters: (b) An adjuster shall treat all claimants equally. 2. An adjuster shall adjust all claims strictly in accordance with the insurance contract. (c) An adjuster shall not approach investigations, adjustments, and settlements in a manner prejudicial to the insured. (d) An adjuster shall make truthful and unbiased reports of the facts after making a complete investigation. (e) An adjuster shall handle every adjustment and settlement with honesty and integrity, and allow a fair adjustment or settlement to all parties without any remuneration to himself except that to which he is legally entitled. (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. (o) An adjuster shall not undertake the adjustment of any claim concerning which the adjuster is not currently competent and knowledgeable as to the terms and conditions of the insurance coverage, or which otherwise exceeds the adjuster’s current expertise. In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. During the adjustment of the Insured’s claim, the Insurance Company breached this duty by failing to adhere to and comply with the above referenced obligations. To cure the defects outlined above, the Insurance Company must: 1. Immediately pay the Insured a cure of $203,889for losses suffered as a result of the claim; 2. Immediately issue payments for statutory interest for the late payments and owed profit/overhead; 3. Act fairly and honestly towards the Insured and with due regard for their interests; 4. Hire a fair and unbiassed adjuster and experts to properly assess the Insured’s damages; 5. Tender any additional insurance proceeds due and owing to the Insured that would reasonably place the Insured back into a pre-loss condition; 6. Timely adjust the claim with the insured and avoid/limit any additional delay, costs, and prejudice that the Insurance Company’s conduct above has caused and continues to cause the Insured; and 7. Compensate the Insured for the attorneys’ fees and costs accrued as a result of the Insurance Company’s bad faith conduct. Failure to cure all defects during the 60-day safe harbor period may result in additional extra-contractual damages.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
ecaballero@wallenkelley.com 04-28-2025 April 28, 2025 Florida Department of Financial Services Consumer Assistance/Civil Remedy Section Larson Bldg., 200 E. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0322 Complainant: Valerie Nixon Address: 2371 Landings Circle, Bradenton, FL 34209 Attorney: Daniel Ilani Address: 80 SW 8th Street, Suite 2590, Miami, FL 33130 Loss Location: 2371 Landings Circle, Bradenton, FL 34209 Claim: 0100013177 DOI File: 809110 Filing Date: 3/3/2025 To Whom It May Concern: Please accept this as the response of First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Insurance (hereafter “Frontline”) to the purported Civil Remedy Notice (hereafter Purported Notice”) filed by the Complainant. This response is specifically in regard to the property located at 2371 Landings Circle, Bradenton, FL 34209 (hereafter the “Property”), which is insured by Frontline under policy 2499543182 with the effective dates of that policy being April 26, 2024, through April 26, 2025. The Insureds under the aforementioned policy are Valerie Valle and Matthew Nixon. The Complainant lists claim number 0100013177 as the claim number and Frontline does not have a record of any such claim number. Frontline denies the allegations in this Purported Notice and further asserts that this Purported Notice fails to comply with Florida law and is fatally deficient. Frontline has no record of claim number 0100013177. Further, Frontline denies the spurious allegation of this Purported Notice and asserts it has always acted in good faith towards its Insureds and complied with all its obligations under Policy 2499543182. I. Nature of the Complainant’s Civil Remedy Complaint The Purported Notice names Frontline and alleges the following statutory violations: (1) not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly towards its insured; (2) making claims payments to insureds or beneficiaries not accompanied by a statement setting forth the coverage under which payment are being made; (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; (4) 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, (5) failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims; (6) misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue; (7) failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims; (8) denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information; (9) failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and, as to partial coverage, the dollar amount or extent of coverage, or failing to provide a written statement that the claim is being investigated, upon the written request of the insured within 30 days after proof-of loss statements have been completed; (10) 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 offer of a compromise or settlement; (11) failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim; (12) failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary; (13) failing to pay personal injury protection insurance claims within the time periods required by s. 627.736 (4) (b). The Purported Notice is a legal nullity for the reasons and deficiencies discussed below. Florida Statute 624.155 requires a Claimant to provide the Insurer 60 days, written notice of the violation as a condition precedent of commencing a “bad faith” action. Florida Statute 624.155(3) requires the following five (5) pieces of 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 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 the Civil Remedy Notice shall be “on a form provided by the [Department] and shall state with specificity…such other information as the department may require. After the promulgation of this statute, the Department created a CRM form: Form DFS-10-363, which lays out the following requirements: 1. Complainant’s Name 2. Complainant’s Address 3. Complainant’s Email Address 4. Complainant Type 5. Insured’s Name 6. Insurance Policy Number 7. Insurance Claim Number 8. Attorney’s Name 9. Attorney’s Address 10. Attorney’s Email Address 11. Type of Insurer 12. Name of Insurer 13. Type of Insurance 14. 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 Florida Supreme Court has held that section 624.155, Florida Statutes must be “strictly construed.” Talat Enter., 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. Accordingly, such an interpretation would mean that statutory bad faith cases cannot proceed unless the claimant has specifically complied with all statutory provisions. III. Civil Remedy Notice Deficiencies i. First Deficiency: The Purported Notice fails to list all Insureds under the Policy, or even any named Insured under the Policy. Specifically, the subject policy lists Valerie Valle and Matthew Nixon as named Insureds under the policy. This deficiency applies to all allegations in the Purported Notice, supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(2), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(2), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(1). ii. Second Deficiency: The Purported Notice fails to identify a valid claim number. Specifically, Frontline has no record of the listed claim number in the Complaint’s Purported Notice. This deficiency applies to all allegations in the Purported Notice, supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(2), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(2), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(1). iii. Third Deficiency: Section 624.155(3)(b)(2), Florida Statutes, requires that the Civil Remedy Notice state with specificity the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation. The Purported Notice does not supply facts or circumstances that explain the allegations. Rather, it includes vague and conclusory allegations that amount to little else than the Complaint’s grievance that they have not been provided what they feel is sufficient payment. The Complainant simply makes outrageously vague allegations of “cursory inspection” and “biased experts,” without providing a single specific fact giving rise to these vague and conclusory allegations. Thus, the Purported Notice is invalid for noncompliance with Section 624.155(3)(b)(2), Florida Statutes. This deficiency applies to all allegations in the Purported Notice, supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(2), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(2), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(1). iv. Fourth Deficiency: Section 624.155(3)(b)(3) requires that the Notice list the name of any individual involved in the violation. The Purported Notice fails to lists a single, specific name. It simply states, “all adjusters, supervisors, management, attorneys, and individuals associated with and/or retained by First Protective Insurance Company concerning the claim at issues.” 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, supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(2), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(2), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(1). v. Fifth Deficiency: Section 624.155(3)(b)(3), Florida Statutes, requires the Civil Remedy Notice to reference specific policy language that is relevant to the violation. A third-party claimant is not required to reference specific policy language, absent receipt of a copy of the Policy. However, the Claimant in this Purported Notice is not a third-party claimant, therefore the Purported Notice must include specific language from the subject policy that is relevant to the alleged violations. The Purported Notice does not. Rather it states a brief, general Policy topics of “Loss Settlement and Loss Payment” without citing to actual Policy language. However, the Purported Notice does not reference specific policy language relevant to the alleged violation, nor any specific policy language in support of the laundry list of allegations of the Purported Notice. It is clear that the Claimant’s allegations include policy-related violations, and as such, it must cite the policy language that is relevant to such violations. It does not. 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, supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(2), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(2), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(1). Florida courts have weighed in on this requirement, finding that "[i]f the statute contained no specificity requirement, [then] the [insureds'] casual 'reference' to the entire insurance policy undoubtedly would suffice." Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So. 3d 875, 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021 at 879 (citing Fox v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., No. 8:16-CV-3254-T-23MAP, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65123, 2017 WL 1541294, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2017). 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 Julien, the insured cited numerous statutory violations and listed nearly every provision in the Policy. The Fourth District Court of Appeals agreed with the circuit court that the Civil Remedy Notice failed to specify the statutory and policy provisions at issue. Much the same as in Julien, the Purported Notice fails to state with any real degree of specificity the policy language at issue. vi. Sixth Deficiency The Purported Notice is fatally deficient as it does not supply the necessary information that would allow Frontline to “cure” the alleged violations. While the Purported Notice requires payment of $203,889, the Purported Notice additionally demands that in order to cure the defects of the Notice, the Insurance company must also (1) immediately issue payment for statutory interest; (2) act fairly and honestly towards the Insured and with due regard for their interest; (3) hire a fair an unbiased adjuster and experts to fairly assess the Insured’s damages; (4) tender any additional insurance proceeds due and owing to the Insured that would reasonably place the Insured back into a pre-loss condition, (5) timely adjust the claim with the insured and avoid/limit any additional delay, costs, and prejudice that the Insurance Company’s conduct has caused and continues to cause the Insured, and (6) compensate the Insured for the attorney’s fees and costs accrued as a result of the Insurance Company’s bad faith conduct. To begin with, the Purported Notice improperly demands that Frontline pay attorney’s fees and costs as part of its cure demand. In Talat Enter., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. And Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1283 (Fla. 2000), the Florida Supreme Court adopted the following analysis by Magistrate Judge Glazebrook: The Court rejects as unsupported Talat's contention that the insured must not only pay the claim within the sixty-day window, but must also pay all compensatory damages that flow from any delay in settling the claim. Section 624.155 does not impose on an insurer the obligation to pay whatever the insured demands. The sixty-day window is designed to be a cure period that will encourage payment of the underlying claim, and avoid unnecessary bad faith litigation. Surely an insurer need not immediately pay 100% of the damages claimed to flow from bad faith conduct in order to avoid the chance that the insured will succeed on a bad faith cause of action. If the insurer may avoid a bad faith action only by paying in advance every penny of the damages that it faces if it loses at trial, the insurer would have no reason to pay. Furthermore, few insureds would restrict their demands to compensatory damages. There is no reason why insureds would not demand also the advance payment of punitive damages and attorney's fees. Section 624.155(2)(d) would have no effect or purpose under such an interpretation. The law does not support such an expansive and illogical reading of Fla. Stat. Ann. § 624.155(2)(d). See Talat, 753 So. 2d 1278, at 1282 (emphasis added). Additionally, the laundry lists of vague and imprecise cure demands (i.e. “act fairly and honestly toward it’s insured,” “hire fair and unbiassed adjusters and experts,” “tender any additional insurance proceeds…that would reasonably place the Insured back into a pre-loss condition.”), make it impossible for Frontline to “cure” this Purported Notice, thus rendering the Notice fatally deficient. This deficiency applies to all allegations in the Purported Notice, supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(2), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(2), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(1). IV. Conclusion Notwithstanding the deficiencies in, and the invalidity of, the Purported Notice, Frontline denies any wrongdoing. It specifically denies that it violated the insurance policy or Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Purported Notice. Furthermore, Frontline asserts this Purported Notice is factually inaccurate, vague, conclusory, and fails to comply with Florida Statute 624.155. Further, by this response, Frontline 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, Frontline hereby again, expressly, and specifically, reserves all of its rights, without exception or limitation. Sincerely, Elibet Caballero, Esq. Frontline Insurance Company
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