Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     809297
Filing Accepted:  3/3/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
WOODWORTH   First Name   LEWIS AND SANDRA
Street Address * 34125 OLANA COURT
City, State Zip * DADE CITY, FL 33523
Email Address * INTAKE2@THEKRFIRM.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   WOODWORTH   First Name   LEWIS AND SANDRA
Policy # * 59-Q8-5865-4 Claim #* 59-75K9-73K
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* KADIR First Name * ALI Initial A.
Street Address* 986 DOUGLAS AVE, STE. 102
City, State Zip* ALTAMONTE SPRINGS , FL 32714
Email Address * INTAKE2@THEKRFIRM.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10739
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* TRAVIS HARTMAN, TERRILL S. GILLYARD, JAMES B. COOPER, DOUGLAS C. MACDAID, AMY R. BISHOP, MINDY L. LYONS, MICHAEL B. MARTIN, AND ALL STATE FARM CLAIMS ADJUSTERS, EMPLOYEES, REPRESENTATIVES, AGENTS, VENDORS, AND/OR ENGINEERS WHO HANDLED THE CLAIM.
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
Claim Delay
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Unfair Trade Practice
Other : Misrepresentation
* 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)(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)(4) Failing to pay undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed under first-party property insurance policies within 60 days after an insurer receives notice of a residential property insurance claim, determines the amounts of partial or full benefits, and agrees to coverage, unless payment of the undisputed benefits is prevented by factors beyond the control of the insurer as defined in s. 627.70131(5).
* 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 – DWELLING We will pay for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage A, unless the loss is excluded or limited in SECTION I – LOSSES NOT INSURED or otherwise excluded or limited in this policy. . . . COVERAGE B – PERSONAL PROPERTY We will pay for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage B caused by the following perils, unless the loss is excluded or limited in SECTION I – LOSSES NOT INSURED or otherwise excluded or limited in this policy. . . . . 2. Windstorm or hail.”
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Lewis and Sandra Woodworth (“the Woodworths”) are homeowner insureds with a policy issued by State Farm Florida Insurance Company (“State Farm”). The insured property or home is located at 34125 Olana Court, Dade City, Florida 33523. In October of 2024, Hurricane Milton caused extensive damage to the Woodworths’ home. The Woodworths timely reported an insurance claim for this damage to State Farm and fully cooperated with all requests for inspections. They provided all requested documentation, if any, and complied with all post loss policy conditions. After reporting the claim, State Farm retained an unqualified and biased field adjuster who has a financial relationship with State Farm. This field adjuster inspected the Woodworths’ home in an apparent effort to minimize State Farm’s losses instead of adjusting the claim in good faith in due regard for the Woodworths’ interests. Despite State Farm finding coverage for their claim, it significantly undervalued the Woodworths’ claim at only $20,616.29. However, the Woodworths are still awaiting State Farm’s $20,616.29 check which was presumably issued on the same date as its field adjuster’s estimate was created and sent to the Woodworths (2/24/2025). Due to such, the Woodworths have not been able to permanently repair their home. Indeed, invoices for debris clean-up, flooring removal/installation, mold remediation, and tarp as well as an estimate for repair of all damages were prepared on behalf of the Woodworths totaling $386,927.78 and were submitted to State Farm; well above the amount from State Farm. Based on these facts, it is clear State Farm unreasonably denied full coverage for the Woodworths’ claim in bad faith through its extremely low and unreasonable undervaluation of their claim. Had State Farm conducted a reasonable investigation based upon the available information, it would have been evident that affording greater coverage and issuing a substantially higher payment is warranted. Instead, it failed to adopt and implement standards for proper claim investigation as well as misrepresented pertinent policy provisions/facts rather than act fairly and/or honestly with the Woodworths in due regard for their interests. State Farm also delayed the claim and failed to timely respond to communications. This has become a common business practice of State Farm. 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. State Farm has breached this duty by refusing to properly and timely adjust the loss. As a result, the Woodworths will have no choice but to retain the undersigned counsel to file a lawsuit against State Farm. State Farm has more than enough information and is still refusing to accept coverage for this 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. State Farm can avoid a lawsuit for bad faith by immediately accepting full coverage under the subject insurance policy for this claim and by paying the Woodworths $365,947.78, which is the policy limit for coverage A less the 2% hurricane deductible.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
Intake2@thekrfirm.com 11-26-2025 CRN is withdrawn
MKwak@simonreedlaw.com 05-01-2025 To Whom It May Concern: We write on behalf of State Farm Florida Insurance Company (hereinafter “State Farm®”), to specifically respond to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation (“CRN”), No. 809297, filed on behalf of the CRN Complainants, Lewis and Sandra Woodworth. State Farm denies all of the allegations contained within the CRN and finds them to be without merit. In addition to this correspondence, a detailed CRN response has been sent via e-mail to the CRN Complainants’ counsel of record. Section §624.155(3)(b), Florida Statutes requires the CRN state with specificity the following: (1) the statutory provision allegedly violated, including the specific language of the statute; (2) the facts and circumstances that give rise to a violation of those statutes referenced in the civil remedy 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. The CRN fails to comply with section §624.155(3)(b), Florida Statutes. Complainants’ CRN cites to twelve Statutes; however, the CRN fails to provide facts or circumstances connecting the alleged violations of the Statutes as listed. Each Statute is specifically addressed further below. The CRN also identified the following persons “TRAVIS HARTMAN, TERRILL S. GILLYARD, JAMES B. COOPER, DOUGLAS C. MACDAID, AMY R. BISHOP, MINDY L. LYONS, MICHAEL B. MARTIN, AND ALL STATE FARM CLAIMS ADJUSTERS, EMPLOYEES, REPRESENTATIVES, AGENTS, VENDORS, AND/OR ENGINEERS WHO HANDLED THE CLAIM” who have the most knowledge or are the most responsible for the alleged violations. The CRN does not further explain what knowledge the listed persons have or what they were responsible for in support of the CRN allegations. Finally, the CRN cites to Policy coverage provisions involving the dwelling and personal property, but it does not identify the specific Policy language connected with any alleged violations. Florida courts interpret section §624.155(3)(b) to require a civil remedy notice be specific enough to provide insurers notice of wrongdoing so an insurer can timely cure the alleged violations within sixty days. Talat Enterprises Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). Also see, e.g., Heritage Corp. of S. Fla. v. Nat. Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 580 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1298-99 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (insured did not state with specificity the facts giving rise to the specific statutory violation so as to put insurer on notice of wrongful acts being alleged); Nowak v. Lexington Ins. Co., 464 F. Supp. 2d 1248, 1251-52 (S.D. Fla. 2006) (holding that the insured could not proceed with a cause of action based upon an alleged violation of section 626.9541 when that statute was not specifically listed in the CRN); Valenti v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., No. 8:04-CV-1615-T-30TGW, 2006 WL 1627276, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 6, 2006) (disallowing certain actions for bad faith that were not specific enough to put insurer on notice of alleged violations). A CRN that cites numerous statutes with no factual support fails to meet this specificity requirement. See Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So. 3d 875, No. 4D19- 2763, 2021 WL 824438 (Fla. 4th DCA Mar. 3, 2021). Further, section §624.155(3)(b)(4) requires that a CRN state with specificity the policy language that is relevant to the alleged violation. A civil remedy notice fails to satisfy the statutory requirement that an insured “state with specificity” the relevant policy language when the insured lists nearly every provision in the insurance policy. See Julien, 311 So. 3d 875. Similarly, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida addressed a Civil Remedy Notice that was also improperly broad in scope and concluded that listing nearly all policy provisions does not satisfy the requirements of § 624.155(3)(b)(4). See Fox v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., No. 8:16- CV-3254-T-23-MAP, 2017 WL 1541294 (M.D. Fla. 2017). The Court found that “[i]f the statute contained no specificity requirement, [then] the [insureds’] casual ‘reference’ to the entire insurance policy undoubtedly would suffice;” however, “the Legislature included ‘specific’ or a variant not once but twice in the statute.” Id. As a result, the insured’s listing of whole sections of the insurance policy “appear[ed] to lack specificity” as clearly required by the statute. Id. The CRN fails to comply with section §624.155(3)(b) and should have been rejected by the Department of Financial Services and returned based upon these deficiencies. I. State Farm’s Good Faith Claim Investigation On October 15, 2024, the Complainants, Lewis and Sandra Woodworth reported a Hurricane Milton loss to their property located at 34125 Olana CT, Dade City, FL 33523-6793 (“Property”) with a reported date of loss of October 9, 2024. Prior to reporting their loss, on October 12, 2024, the Insureds hired a contractor, Florida Quality Landscape, LLC, for debris and tree removal that generated an invoice for $3,000. On October 26, 2024, the Insureds signed a contract with a Public Adjuster (“PA”) Lifeline Public Adjusters. On October 30, 2024, the Insureds’ PA e-mailed State Farm a letter of representation. On November 4, 2024, the Insureds hired Baez Restoration to install a roof tarp for $5,298. On November 3, 2024, State Farm completed its field inspection of the Property. On November 9, 2024, State Farm sent its claim determination letter regarding its evaluation of the Insureds’ loss, calculating repairs to damages for $7,362.92, which fell below the Policy’s 2% Hurricane deductible of $20,980. On November 27, 2024, the Insureds hired J&S Air Quality Experts to complete a mold inspection and assessment. On December 3, 2024, PA disputed State Farm’s claim evaluation. On December 9, 2024, State Farm denied coverage for the Insureds’ mold claim. On December 20, 2024, PA e-mailed State Farm its estimate for $352,724.81 RCV. On December 26, 2024, the PA submitted the Insureds’ sworn proof of loss statement (“SPOL”) based on the PA’s estimate. On December 29, 2024, the Insureds obtained a flooring replacement proposal for $22, 749 from Scharber Flooring, Inc. On December 30, 2024, State Farm e-mailed the PA requesting a reinspection based on the Insureds’ dispute and estimates submitted. In response, the PA demanded Appraisal. On January 1, 2025, State Farm rejected the Appraisal Demand. State Farm again requested a reinspection of the Property. On January 13, 2025, State Farm completed its reinspection of the Property. On January 27, 2025, State Farm sent the PA a reservation of rights letter and request for information involving the alleged damages to the Property’s cabinetry, mitigation moisture reading photographs, and the mitigation estimate/invoice. On February 7, 2025, State Farm followed up on its request for information and documents. On February 19, 2025, Baez e-mailed State Farm a dryout logs and invoice for $13,079.63 with photographs. On February 24, 2025, State Farm prepared an updated estimate for $43,404.71RCV / $41,596.29 ACV for repairs to the roof system, interior of the Property, detached garage and other structures. On February 27, 2025, State Farm issued claim payments of $17,999.43 and $2,616.86 (total of $20,616.29) to the Insureds based on its revised estimate. On March 3, 2025, the Insureds filed this CRN. Also, on March 3, 2025, the Insureds filed a Property Insurance Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation (“NOI”) with a presuit settlement demand of $375,331, attaching the PA’s updated estimate for $353,530.78, Florida Quality Landscape, LLC, debris and tree removal invoice for $3,000, Scharber Flooring, Inc.’s flooring replacement proposal for $22,749 J&S Air Quality Experts mold testing invoice for $2,350 and Baez roof tarp service invoice for $5,298. On March 6, 2025, State Farm sent a SPOL Response Letter rejecting the Insureds’ SPOL. On March 12, 2025, State Farm sent a NOI Response Letter with a $400 offer to resolve the Insureds’ dispute. On March 14, 2025, State Farm sent a supplemental claim determination letter with a claim payment of $20,616.29 with an updated estimate. On March 17, 2025, State Farm reissued the $20,616.29 claim payment due to a prior error with payees and issued an interest payment for $804.95. State Farm’s investigation continues as State Farm is seeking a reinspection with an expert Forensic Engineer and General Contractor. II. CRN Allegations & Deficiencies The CRN generally alleges the reasons for the CRN are “Claim Denial,” “Claim Delay,” “Unfair Settlement Offer,” “Unfair Trade Practices” and “Misrepresentation.” The CRN allegations are conclusory and overbroad and do not support the reasons for it. There is no factual support for the Insureds’ list alleged violations. State Farm denies each and every one of these allegations. The CRN alleges the following Statutes that State Farm violated: 1. 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. The CRN did not provide any facts to identify any of State Farm’s actions that would violate this Statute. As stated above, State Farm completed its investigation and issued a supplemental claim determination letter with claim payments based on the revised estimate. State Farm in good faith reviewed the Insureds’ estimate and SPOL and responded by rejecting the amounts claimed. Finally, State Farm responded to the Insureds’ NOI by making an offer to resolve their claim dispute. 2. 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. The CRN does not provide any facts in support of this assertion. State Farm has cured this violation by sending a supplemental claim letter on March 14, 2025 with the claim payments based on its updated estimate. 3. 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. As stated above, State Farm’s good faith investigation determined coverage for the Insureds’ Hurricane Milton loss. State Farm’s initial claim evaluation fell below the Policy’s 2% Hurricane deductible and no payment was issued. Insureds’ PA submitted the Insureds’ SPOL with an estimate to dispute State Farm’s claim evaluation. State Farm completed a reinspection of the Property and issued a supplemental claim letter with payment based on its updated estimate. CRN failed to specify what attempts State Farm failed to make to settle this claim. CRN fails to put State Farm on notice of any such violation. 4. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. The CRN makes this conclusory allegation without providing any facts supporting the violation. As stated above, State Farm inspected and extended coverage for the Insureds’ Hurricane Milton loss and provided its evaluation of the damages. State Farm reopened its claim investigation after receiving the Insureds’ claim dispute and SPOL and completed a reinspection of the Property and reevaluated the damages. The CRN generally alleges that State Farm “retained an unbiased field adjuster” who inspected the Property “in an apparent effort to minimize State Farm’s losses.” No additional facts were provided beyond this conclusory statement. 5. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. CRN does not provide any facts to support this allegation. As stated above, State Farm provided its explanation of its findings on November 9, 2024 and March 14, 2025 extending coverage for the Insureds’ loss. CRN fails to identify what facts or policy provisions State Farm misrepresented and when such a misrepresentation occurred. This allegation is unsupported, vague, conclusory and the CRN lacks any specificity with which to put State Farm on notice of a violation. 6. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) an insurer acts in bad faith if it fails to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. The CRN fails to identify with specify the facts connected to this violation. State Farm in fact responded to each communication and issued the initial and supplemental claim determination letters after its investigation was completed. On December 28, 2024, State Farm acknowledged receiving the Insureds’ SPOL sent on December 26, 2024. Finally, State Farm believes it has cured this unsupported allegation by specifically responding to the SPOL by rejecting the amounts claimed. 7. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information. This CRN allegation is without merit. State Farm extended coverage for the Insureds’ Hurricane Milton loss. State Farm’s initial claim evaluation fell below the Policy’s 2% Hurricane deductible and its initial field inspection of the Property. Upon further investigation, State Farm reinspected the Property and issued a supplemental claim determination letter and issued claim payments to the Insureds based on the updated estimate. 8. 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. As addressed above, State Farm immediately issued its initial claim determination following its field inspection of the Property and issued a supplemental claim letter with a claim payment based on the updated estimate after a reinspection. The CRN alleges that the Insureds “are still awaiting State Farm’s $20,616.29 check which was presumably issued on the same date as its field adjuster’s estimate was created and sent to the Woodworths (2/24/2025).” State Farm issued the claim payments on February 27, 2025, which was reissued on March 17, 2025 after a payee error was discovered with an interest payment. State Farm believes it cured this allegation. 9. 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. The CRN fails to provide any further explanation pertaining to this alleged violation. As stated above, State Farm extended coverage and provided its findings in an initial claim letter dated November 9, 2024 and supplemental claim letter dated March 14, 2025. 10. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g) Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim. The CRN lacks any specificity with which to put State Farm on notice of a violation. State Farm sent correspondence involving its request for information and documents as stated above in order to evaluate the Insureds’ claim dispute. 11. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h) Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary. This allegation is inaccurate. State Farm sent letters identify the information and documents it needed to evaluate the Insureds’ Hurricane Milton Loss. Insureds’ PA acknowledged receipt of the letters and did not ask questions about the information requested. 12. 626.9541(1)(i)(4) Failing to pay undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed under first-party property insurance policies within 60 days after an insurer receives notice of a residential property insurance claim, determines the amounts of partial or full benefits, and agrees to coverage, unless payment of the undisputed benefits is prevented by factors beyond the control of the insurer as defined in s. 627.70131(5). The CRN did not provide any evidence to support the assertion that State Farm violated this Statute. State Farm promptly conducted its investigation of the Insureds’ loss and issued its initial claim determination on November 9, 2024. State Farm reopened its claim investigation after it received the Insureds’ SPOL and completed a reinspection. State Farm issued a supplemental claim letter with a claim payment based on the updated estimate. The CRN alleges that the Insureds “are still awaiting State Farm’s $20,616.29 check which was presumably issued on the same date as its field adjuster’s estimate was created and sent to the Woodworths (2/24/2025).” State Farm issued the claim payments on February 27, 2025, which was reissued on March 17, 2025 after a payee error was discovered with an interest payment. State Farm believes it cured this allegation. The CRN lists Policy coverage provisions for the dwelling and personal property that State Farm allegedly violated. The CRN references “COVERAGE A – DWELLING” that State Farm “will pay for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage A, unless the loss is excluded or limited in SECTION I – LOSSES NOT INSURED or otherwise excluded or limited in this policy. . .” and “COVERAGE B – PERSONAL PROPERTY” that State Farm “will pay for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage B caused by the following perils, unless the loss is excluded or limited in SECTION I – LOSSES NOT INSURED or otherwise excluded or limited in this policy…” and “2. Windstorm or hail.” The CRN does not provide specific language that connects to State Farm’s alleged violations. State Farm denies each and every one of these allegations as set forth in the CRN. III. The Alleged Cure in the CRN. The purpose of the CRN is to provide State Farm with an opportunity to “cure” the alleged violations. See Fla. Stat. 624.155(3)(c); Rousso v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82328 *8-9 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 13, 2020) (the purpose of the Notice is to “advise the insurer of precisely how the ‘circumstances giving rise to the violation’ may be corrected; failure to identify a cure renders the civil remedy notice insufficient”). Also see Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 753 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). The CRN fails to provide specific facts to apply to the alleged violations claimed. The CRN states that in order for State Farm to “avoid a lawsuit for bad faith by immediately accepting full coverage under the subject insurance policy for this claim and by paying the Woodworths $365,947.78, which is the policy limit for coverage A less the 2% hurricane deductible.” The cure instructions contradict themselves as they seek a payment for $365,947.78 without applying depreciation and the Policy’s 2% Hurricane of $20,980; however, the CRN also seeks a payment for the policy limit for coverage A, which is $1,049,000. State Farm is left to speculate whether any payment will “cure” the CRN. The CRN fails to provide State Farm with a meaningful opportunity to cure. State Farm categorically denies that it or any of its representatives engaged in any prohibited conduct or violated the statutes referenced in the CRN. The CRN was filed without sufficient factual or legal basis.
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