Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     809607
Filing Accepted:  3/5/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
PEREZ   First Name   MAGALI
Street Address * 4503 COUNTRY HILLS BOULEVARD
City, State Zip * PLANT CITY, FL 33563
Email Address * PEREZ.MAGALI023@YAHOO.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   PEREZ   First Name   MAGALI
Policy # * P012956326 Claim #* 255733
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* LOUIS First Name * PIERRE Initial
Street Address* 290 NW 165TH STREET, SUITE M-500
City, State Zip* MIAMI , FL 33169
Email Address * SERVICE@LOUISLAWGROUP.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10117
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* NA
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)(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)(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.

Governed by the cited authorities, the insurance policy (“Policy”) provides coverage on a name peril basis, requires the insurer to issue full payment for all covered losses and damages that arise during the Policy period as a consequence of a direct physical loss to property. Specifically, the Policy states, “we insure for direct physical loss to the property covered caused by: . . . Windstorm or Hail.” SFI FL DF1 01 20, pg. 6 of 15. The only exceptions being fraud, intentional damage, and/or the determination that a Policy exclusion or limitation applies. That said, and to lawfully assert any exclusion and/or limitation, the insurer must have a good faith basis to conclude that it can prove the application of the exception or privilege by a preponderance of the evidence gathered during its reasonable and prompt investigation and adjustment of the claim. At a very minimum, the insurer is required to issue full payment for any losses or damages for which such exceptions and/or limitations cannot be promptly verified per the evidentiary considerations referenced, and for an amount that corresponds with the actual cash value of the loss, or the amount necessary to perform repairs in relation to the losses or damages.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

The Complainant and Insured, Magali Perez, (including her authorized representative, hereinafter “Complainant”), maintained a homeowner’s insurance policy (hereinafter “Policy”) with Security First Insurance Company dba Security First Florida (hereinafter “SFIC”), which generally and broadly provided coverage for any direct physical loss to the residential property, 4503 Country Hills Blvd Plant City, FL 33563, (hereinafter “Property”), that occurred during the Policy period. On or about, May 15, 2024, while the Policy was in full force and effect, Complainant suffered a covered loss; to wit: hail causing interior and exterior damage to the property (hereinafter the “loss”). The interior of the Complainant’s property sustained significant damage, due hail, to which loss SFIC assigned claim number 255733. To date, SFIC has refused to remit all proceeds due and owing to the Complainant for her loss, despite Complainant’s compliance with her post loss obligations, and despite SFIC’s receipt of an estimate contradictory to its unilateral assessment of the loss’ value. On March 5, 2025, Complainant, with the assistance of counsel, filed a lawsuit against SFIC. Although hundreds of days have passed since the claims for losses and damages were presented for payment under the Policy, SFIC has refused to remit all proceeds due and owing to Complainant for her loss. Despite Complainant’s compliance with her post loss obligations, despite no express language in the policy excluding damage caused to the Complainant’s property by hail, and despite SFIC receipt of an estimate of damages contradictory to its unilateral assessment of the loss. The Complainant has established that the loss occurred during the policy, but SFIC has failed to meet its burden that all of the damage is caused by a policy exclusion. SFIC has attempted, in bad faith, to close Complainant’s claim by denying coverage for the loss. Since this loss occurred, SFIC’s strategy has been to prolong and delay the fair adjustment of Complainant’s claim. As a result of the deficient adjustment of the loss, Complainant’s property has remained in a state of disrepair, while SFIC has collected a premium on a policy that was designed to protect insureds like the Complainant during her hour of need. Complainant is requesting that SFIC live up to the insurance contract in which SFIC promised to adjust all losses with its Complainant. This promise to adjust all losses with its Complainant is one that SFIC must undertake in good faith, which means it cannot unilaterally determine the value of its Complainant’s losses and remit payment to the Complainant that is grossly insufficient to cover the estimated damages, or, as in this instance, refuse to remit any payment to Complainant under the Policy and deny coverage of the loss. Complainant placed her trust in SFIC and has paid all premiums due and owing, and in exchange for said premiums, she is asking SFIC to pay the damages that it agreed to cover when it issued the insurance policy. The work of adjusting insurance claims in Florida requires insurers to engage the public trust. SFIC has clearly breached this trust with respect to its deficient handling of Complainant’s claim. SFIC is obviously motivated by a desire to protect its own interest to the detriment of its Complainant, and has pursued a course, which is only advantageous to itself. SFIC’s general business practice of willful, wanton, deceptive and bad faith claim handling policies, procedures, guidelines, protocol, adjusting, investigating, drawing valuations and issuing payment for the claims has caused the Complainant to suffer further harm and extra-contractual damages that have accrued, and will continue to accrue. The stated misconduct is collectively referred to as “Bad Faith,” and the specific factual and/or legal considerations in relation thereto are further outlined below for its consideration in accordance with Fla. Stat. Sec. 624.155 and the cited legal authorities associated therewith. 1. SFIC insures hundreds of homes throughout the area where the Complainant’s residence is located. That said, it failed to institute the necessary policies, procedures, guidelines, protocol, personnel and contingencies in relation to fully, promptly and equitably indemnify its insureds who are impacted by hail losses. Consequently, insureds such as the Complainant were forced to fend for themselves to mitigate damages arising from SFIC’s Bad Faith; absorb the burden, expense, inconvenience and delay associated with an insurer who was not equipped (because it didn’t want to incur the expense associated therewith) to meet their contractual obligations; risk health hazards associated with the presence of moisture and/or mold due to SFIC’s failure to perform pursuant to the Policy; hire experts/professionals/counsel to force SFIC to abide by its fiduciary duty and avoid the consequential damages associated with SFIC’s failure to perform; etc. 2. SFIC knew that hail losses are of a nature that a thorough, nuanced and specialized investigation/adjustment of the claim needs to be promptly performed by qualified and prepared personnel in order to protect its insureds, satisfy its fiduciary duties and otherwise not engage in the Bad Faith claim handling practices at issue. That said to the detriment of its insureds and to maximize its financial interests, SFIC disregarded the obvious and known obligations by way of the following: a. Not developing, maintaining and/or instituting policies, procedures, protocol or guidelines to determine whether adjusters/personnel/vendors utilized to protect its insureds were qualified to duly assess the scope and/or value of the loss or damages. b. By way of the cited legal authorities and considerations, SFIC knew that it would have to promptly hire licensed contractors, uniquely qualified adjusters and/or engineers to fully, equitably and honestly assess the scope and/or value of the loss or damages suffered by its insureds. c. By way of the cited legal authorities and considerations, SFIC knew that it would be in its insureds’ interests and its obligation under the insurance policy to utilize personnel/vendors to perform moisture meter assessments throughout the insureds property to honestly assess the full extent of damages and losses suffered by its insureds. Such practice is a simple, inexpensive, efficient and industry wide accepted means of protecting its insureds, however, SFIC knows that it does not serve its financial interest since it will increase its financial obligations to insureds such as the Complainant. Although SFIC will implement such methods to establish a lack of coverage as it relates to a specific claim in which it determines coverage may be in dispute, it choose to avoid such expense for self-gain when it knows that the claim is covered. d. By way of the cited legal authorities and considerations, SFIC knew that it would be in its insureds’ interests and its obligation under the insurance policy to utilize personnel/vendors to perform thermal imaging assessments throughout the insured property to honestly assess the full extent of damages and losses suffered by its insureds. Such practice is a simple, inexpensive, efficient and industry wide accepted means of protecting its insureds, however, SFIC knows that it does not serve its financial interest since it will increase its financial obligations to insureds such as the Complainant. Once again though, and although SFIC will implement such methods to establish a lack of coverage as it relates to a specific claim in which it determine coverage may be in dispute, it choose to avoid such expense for self-gain when it knows that the claim is covered. e. By way of the cited legal authorities and considerations, SFIC knew that it would be in its insureds’ interests and its obligation under the insurance policy to utilize personnel/vendors to perform detailed, thorough, reliable and qualified assessments of any air conditioning component of the home in which moisture escaped. Such practice is a simple, inexpensive, efficient and industry wide accepted means of protecting its insureds, however, SFIC knows that it does not serve its financial interest since it will increase its financial obligations to insureds such as the Complainant. Once again though, and although SFIC will implement such methods to establish a lack of coverage as it relates to a specific claim in which it determines coverage may be in dispute, it choose to avoid such expense for self-gain when it knows the claim is covered under the Policy. f. By way of the cited legal authorities and considerations, SFIC knew that it would be in its insureds’ interests and its obligation under the insurance policy to retain a licensed mold assessor to determine whether there were concealed conditions within the home which necessitated mold remediation and the need for its insureds to take precautionary measures to preserve their physical health and property interests. Such practice is a simple, inexpensive, efficient and industry wide accepted means of protecting its insureds, however, SFIC knows that it does not serve its financial interest since it will increase its financial obligations to insureds such as the Complainant. Once again though, and although SFIC will implement such methods to establish a lack of coverage as it relates to a specific claim in which it determines coverage may be in dispute, it choose to avoid such expense for self-gain when it knows that the claim is covered. g. By way of the cited legal authorities and considerations, SFIC knew that it would be in its insureds’ interests and its obligation under the insurance policy to promptly issue payment for professional/qualified moisture assessments and remediation in order to, inter alia, avoid: the development of hazardous/toxic conditions within the residence; preclude the insured from suffering consequential and extra-contractual damages; the development of an uninhabitable residence and various risks that may develop; etc. Such practice is an accepted, reasonable, necessary and industry wide accepted means of protecting its insureds, however, SFIC knows that it does not serve its financial interest since it will increase its financial obligations to insureds such as the Complainant. h. By way of the cited legal authorities and considerations, SFIC knew that it would be in its insureds’ interests and its obligation under the insurance policy to utilize a license mold remediator to consider a license mold assessor’s assessments and protocol in order to honestly determine the true scope and value of damages and/or the loss. Such practice is a simple, inexpensive, efficient and industry wide accepted means of protecting its insureds, however, SFIC knows that it does not serve its financial interest since it will increase its financial obligations to insureds such as the Complainant. i. By way of the cited legal authorities and considerations, SFIC knew that it would be in it insureds’ interests and its obligation under the insurance policy to carefully consider all policy terms that afford coverage for losses and damages as the obligation to pay was made reasonably clear, and thereafter utilize counsel when an adjuster is in doubt to advise them on a claim-by-claim basis whether in fact it is duly indemnifying its insureds. Such practice is a simple, inexpensive, efficient and industry wide accepted means of protecting its insureds, however, SFIC knows that it does not serve its financial interest since it will increase its financial obligations to insureds such as the Complainant. j. By way of the cited legal authorities and considerations, SFIC knew that it would be in its insureds’ interests and its obligation under the insurance policy to carefully evaluate on a claim-by-claim basis whether any amounts appropriated for “depreciation” are based on sufficient facts and data, reliable principles and methods, and/or the application of reliable principles and methods. SFIC knows that it is arbitrarily, capriciously, deceptively, willfully and wantonly appropriating depreciation without any claim/item specific consideration to justify same. In the aggregate, and unbeknownst to its insureds, this sham practice allows SFIC to unjustly avoid millions of dollars in benefits owed to its insureds who are consequently placed in a position wherein they are financially coerced into choosing whether to leave their home in a state of disrepair, or alternatively, searching for a handyman and non-licensed vendors to perform makeshift repairs which create secondary risks and potential damages that SFIC will deny coverage for when they arise. k. By way of the cited legal authorities and considerations, SFIC knew that it would be in its insureds’ interests and its obligation under the insurance policy to carefully evaluate on a claim by claim basis, and only after equitably and fully investigating/adjusting claim, the amounts owed to the insured for: overhead and profit associated with the insured’s reasonable need to utilize a general contractor; taxes associated with the repairs; permit costs associated with the repair; costs associated with various licensed trades that will be needed to effectuate the repairs; whether benefits are owed to the insured for loss of use and/or additional living expenses; personal property that may have been affected by toxic/mold/moisture conditions that developed in the home; costs associated with maintaining the continuity of the finish/appearance for pairs or sets such as cabinets, flooring, roof covering/tile/shingles, walls, ceilings; etc. l. By way of the cited legal authorities and considerations, SFIC knew that it had an obligation to ensure that software programs, data bases and adjusting practices utilized to estimate the scope and value of the loss were being utilized in form that: honestly and fully delineated the line item repairs or costs that needed to be performed; pricing corresponded with licensed professionals - as opposed to handyman or non-licensed professionals; accounted for consideration of actual expenditures incurred by the insureds or otherwise compensable expenses on a repair cost basis; etc. Ultimately, SFIC knows that the adjusting practices are guided to unlawfully depriving its insureds of benefits owed under the insurance policy, which in the aggregate, serves to maximize its profits to the detriment of its insureds. m. By way of the cited legal authorities and considerations, SFIC knew that it had an obligation to treat all insureds equally and honestly. However, and for its own financial interest, it will only start to fully consider its obligations as stated herein if the insured retains legal representation and pursues a legal action which exposes them to liabilities and costs, inter alia, Fla. Stat. Secs. 627.70152, 626.9373, 54.071 and 624.155. Even then, SFIC will withhold monies owed in an unjust effort to limit/delay its liabilities in relation to the statutory considerations and otherwise. n. By way of the cited legal authorities and considerations, and even after litigation ensues, SFIC knows that it has a continuous and ongoing duty to not engage in the Bad Faith conduct that is the subject of this Complaint. However, and to advance its own financial interest and avoid the liabilities pursuant to the above cited statutory authorities, SFIC will direct and utilize non-qualified counsel to delay the equitable and prompt payment of the claim via delay tactics and otherwise not implementing policies, procedures and/or guidelines to ensure that its duties are fulfilled during the course of litigation. Moreover, SFIC will insist upon the insureds to fulfill its own obligations by imposing upon them the burden to establish their full entitlement to benefits for which it knows, or should know, are owed. o. By way of the cited legal authorities and considerations, SFIC knows that it has to assess the application of the policy deductible on a case-by-case basis and only after the claim is fully adjusted and investigated. This practice is necessary to protect the interests of the insured since, pursuant to binding precedent and the policy, the deductible is subject to being absorbed by losses and/or damages that exceed a limitation of coverage under a certain section of the policy. p. By way of the cited legal authorities and considerations, SFIC knows that it has a duty to duly assess whether benefits are owed to the insured in relation to the costs associated with removing and resetting personal property in relation to repairs and/or remediation work that needs to be performed. This duty is ignored by SFIC in order to maximize its own financial interests. q. By way of the cited legal authorities and considerations, SFIC knows that it has duty to issue payment for interest owed in relation to payments that were untimely issued per governing authorities. With that said, and to the detriment of the insured, it foregoes and/or delays such considerations in order to maximize its financial interests. r. Although SFIC knows that it has a duty to treat all insureds/assignees equally, it will consistently act inconsistently in relation to: the application of policy limits; the manner in which valuations and/or the scope of repair is assessed; the manner in which an insured is required to comply with policy conditions; the application and/or consideration of policy conditions and/or exclusions to bar coverage; the timing and/or circumstances upon which undisputed payments will be made pre-suit and post-suit; etc. The lack of consistency and organization ultimately serves to deprive insureds of their rights under a policy and otherwise creates an inherently dishonest, immoral, and unfair means of adjusting and investigating claim. s. SFIC knows that once the claim is fully and fairly investigated and adjusted, it then has to determine whether certain benefits are owed to the insured for the cost of engineering fees in relation to the construction/repairs that need to be performed. These costs are avoided by SFIC by engaging in the Bad Faith conduct described herein. t. SFIC’s Bad Faith conduct as described places the insured in a position of being forced into incurring expert fees to secure judicial relief by way of a legal action. Moreover, and as part of the Bad Faith practice, SFIC will await the insured’s post-suit retention of an expert to retain a designated/pre-disposed (due to financial biases) experts to further delay its obligations to its insureds and the consequential liabilities that the legislature has imposed to deter SFIC from engaging in the Bad Faith practice. 3. SFIC’s “toolbox” of Bad Faith claims handling practices as described above leaves insureds, the insured’s counsel, the SFIC’s counsel and even the judiciary guessing as to when and how SFIC will duly perform. The continuously vacillating positions and cherry picking of the described Bad Faith conduct not only serves to maximize SFIC’s prospective financial gains by being able to avoid paying benefits, it also serves to minimize SFIC’s lost adjusting expense as it see fit and to the invariable detriment of its insureds, the Complainant, and ultimately the tax paying citizens of this State that bear the expense of the judicial system which needs to unravel the tangled web created by SFIC. 4. To cure the above stated immoral, deceptive, unlawful and collectively defined general business practice of Bad Faith claims handling practices that are knowingly, willfully, wantonly and/or with a reckless disregard for the Complainant’s interests being implemented, SFIC must perform as follows within 60 days of receiving this Complaint. a. Take corrective action in association with the Bad Faith claims handling practices by way of rectifying same and thereafter duly adjusting, investigating and issuing payment for all benefits owed to the Complainant in the amount of $64,955.82, for indemnity; b. Take corrective action in association with the Bad Faith claims handling practices by way of rectifying same and thereafter duly adjusting, investigating and issuing payment for all benefits owed to the Complainant; c. To the extent verified after duly performing under the policy pursuant to cited authorities and considerations, issuing any and all payments owed to the Complaint for interest on benefits that were untimely paid; d. To the extent verified after duly performing under the policy pursuant to cited authorities and considerations, confess judgment in relation to the pending breach of contract action brought forth by the Complainant; e. After exercising good faith efforts to resolve the claim, issuing payment to the Complainant for any attorney’s fees and/or costs that it cannot dispute are due and owing; f. As it relates to any claims/benefits that may remain in dispute or undetermined, fairly, honestly, specifically, meaningfully and substantively disclosing to the Complainant’s counsel the basis therefor and the means to promptly reach resolution; and/or g. Otherwise fulfilling any and all obligations under the policy that it knows, or should know, remain to be performed.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
htouchton@wrg.law 05-02-2025 May 2, 2025 Via Florida Department of Financial Services Website and Via E-Mail Transmission to service@louislawgroup.com Pierre Louis, Esq. Louis Law Group 290 NW 165th St., Ste. M-500 Miami, Florida 33169 RE: Security First Insurance Company’s Response to Civil Remedy Notice – DFS Filing No. 809607 (filed on March 5, 2025) Insured: Magali Perez Insurer: Security First Insurance Company Our Claim No.: 255733 Date of Loss: 5/15/2024 First Notice of Loss: 6/21/2024 Property: 4503 Country Hills Blvd, Plant City, FL 33563 (Hillsborough County) Dear Attorney Louis: Please allow this correspondence to serve as Security First Insurance Company’s response to the Civil Remedy Notice filed in connection to the above-referenced claim (“the Notice”). As you know, the Notice relates to the claim made by Magali Perez (the “Insured”) for damages as a result of hail roof damages with ceiling leaks and stains in garage, master bedroom and missing shingles on roof that allegedly occurred on May 15, 2024 (Claim Number 255733). Contrary to the allegations contained in the Notice, a review of the claim shows that Security First Insurance Company (“Security First Insurance Company” or “SFIC”) complied with all of its obligations under the policy and Florida law, and that Security First Insurance Company handled the claim in good faith. The claim that was reported by the Insured to SFIC on June 21, 2024 (35 days after the reported date of loss) was for alleged damage from hail to the Insured’s roof resulting with interior water damage. Once reported, an investigation of the claim revealed no evidence of a roof leak in the reported areas, no evidence of hail damage to the roof and the observed wind damage to the roof occurred prior to the policy inception date of May 12, 2203 and therefore was excluded under the subject policy period. Accordingly, a denial letter dated July 30, 2024 was sent to the Insured’s Public Adjuster Easy Claim Corporation supporting SFIC’s claim decision and denial of the claim. Security First Insurance Company issued to the Insured a policy of homeowners’ insurance policy (DF1 policy # P012956326) with effective dates of May 12, 2024 to May 12, 2025 with the policy inception date on or about May 12, 2023, which encompasses the reported date of loss (“Policy”). The policy covers the property and provides relevant coverage limits of $257,000.00 (coverage A), $5,140.00 (coverage B), $15,000.00 (coverage C), $5,140.00 (Coverage D), and $2,500.00 all other perils and water deductible and a $5,140.00 hurricane deductible. On June 15, 2024, Insured executed a public adjuster contract with Easy Claims Public Adjuster (“PA”). On June 18, 2024, Insured executed a contract with Restoration 911 Dry Water Damages which appears On or about June 21, 2024, the PA emailed to SFIC their letter of representation, PA contract, claim process disclosure form and W9. By letters and emails dated June 21, 2024, SFIC sent to Insureds and PA outlining the $3,000 limit under the policy for emergency services, and a reservation of rights outlining the late reporting and acknowledgment of the claim. By letter dated June 24, 2024, SFIC sent to Insureds and PA acknowledgment of receiving the PA LOR. On June 28, 2024, Castle Roofing, on behalf of SFIC, inspected the property and prepared an estimate of the repairs which was provided to the PA. On June 28, 2024, Sleuth Incorporated inspected the property on behalf of SFIC which ultimately found no leaks from the roof coming into the home but found other causes not related to a roof leak. By letter dated July 1, 2024, SFIC sent to PA the castle roofing estimate outlining that the claim investigation was still ongoing. On July 1, 2024, SFIC conducted research into the weather reports for wind or hail events and the last wind event that occurred that could have caused the wind damage occurred on or about September 28 On July 1, 2024, by two separate emails, 911 sent to SFIC their contract for EMS services and the invoice and for the tarping services. On July 8, 2024, the field adjuster Jason Young on behalf of SFIC inspected the property. By letter dated July 30, 2024, SFIC sent to PA their denial letter outlining the below to support the denial: We have completed our investigation of your claim and have determined that this loss is not covered by your policy. Here is how we made our decision regarding your policy’s coverage of this loss: On June 21, 2024, claim number 255733 was reported for hail damage on the roof, missing shingles, and ceiling damage in the master bedroom and garage. A Security First field adjuster, Sleuth, and Castle Roofing were assigned for inspections. The inspection of the interior revealed damaged ceiling texture in the guest bathroom consistent with repeated exposure to elevated humidity from shower use. The discoloration on the ceiling in the garage is consistent with a previous leak or spill from within the attic. There was no evidence of a roof leak above the affected area. The ceiling crack in the master bedroom is consistent with settlement cracks or inadequate drywall installation. The inspection of the roof revealed wind damage and no hail damage. Investigation of the claim revealed that wind did not exceed 40mph on the reported date of loss. The first wind event at the property address occurred on 9/28/2022. The inception date of the policy is May 12, 2023. Based on the investigation of the claim, the wind damage on the roof occurred prior to the inception of the policy. Please refer to your policy SFI FL DF1 01 20 Dwelling Property 1 - Basic Form specifically: PERILS INSURED AGAINST Unless the loss is excluded in the General Exclusions, we insure for direct physical loss to the property covered caused by: 1A. Fire or lightning. 1B. Internal Explosion, meaning explosion occurring in the dwelling or other structure covered on the Described Location or in a structure containing personal property covered. Explosion does not mean: a. Electric arcing; b. Breakage of water pipes; or c. Breakage or operation of pressure relief devices. This peril does not include loss by explosion of steam boilers, or steam pipes, if owned or leased by you or operated under your control. 2. Windstorm or hail. This peril does not include loss: a. To the inside of a building or the property contained in a building caused by rain, snow, sleet, sand or dust unless the direct force of wind or hail damages the building causing an opening in a roof or wall and the rain, snow, sleet, sand or dust enters through this opening; or b. To the following property when outside of the building: (1) awnings, signs, radio or television antennas or aerials including lead-in wiring, masts or towers; or (2) canoes and rowboats. 3. Explosion. This peril does not include loss by explosion of steam boilers or steam pipes, if owned or leased by you or operated under your control. Explosion does not mean: a. Electric arcing; b. Breakage of water pipes; or c. Breakage or operation of pressure relief devices. This peril replaces Peril 1B. 4. Riot or civil commotion. 5. Aircraft, including self-propelled missiles and spacecraft. 6. Vehicles. This peril does not include loss: a. Caused by a vehicle owned or operated by you or a resident of the Described Location; or b. Caused by any vehicle to fences, driveways and walks. 7. Smoke, meaning sudden and accidental damage from smoke. This peril does not include loss caused by smoke from fireplaces or from agricultural smudging or industrial operations. 8. Volcanic Eruption other than loss caused by earthquake, land shock waves or tremors. 9. Catastrophic Ground Cover Collapse We will pay up to the limit of liability shown in your Declarations for loss caused by “Catastrophic ground cover collapse” under the following conditions: a. We insured for direct physical loss to property described under COVERAGES caused by the peril of “Catastrophic ground cover collapse”. b. Coverage C applies if there is a loss resulting from “Catastrophic ground cover collapse”, unless the loss is excluded elsewhere in this policy. c. Damage consisting of merely the settling or cracking of a foundation, structure, or building does not constitute a loss resulting from a “Catastrophic ground cover collapse”. This peril does not increase the limit of liability that applies to the damaged property. The Earth Movement exclusion does not apply to this peril. When a Premium for Vandalism or Malicious Mischief is shown in the Declarations, the following is made part of Perils Insured Against. 10.Vandalism or malicious mischief. This peril does not include loss: a. To glass or safety glazing material constituting a part of the building other than glass building blocks; b. By pilferage, theft, burglary or larceny, but we will be liable for damage to the building covered caused by burglars; or c. To property on the Described Location if the dwelling has been “vacant” or “unoccupied” for more than 30 consecutive days immediately before the loss. A dwelling being constructed is not considered “vacant” or “unoccupied”. GENERAL EXCLUSIONS A. We do not insure for loss caused directly or indirectly by any of the following. Such loss is excluded regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence to the loss. 13. Existing Damage, meaning: a. Damages which occurred prior to policy inception regardless of whether such damages were apparent at the time of the inception of this policy or discovered at a later date; or We have provided you with a copy of your policy to assist you with the understanding of the coverages. On August 6, 2024, Insured executed a direction to pay with Expert Dry Solutions for mold assessment and inspection services. On August 7, 2024, Expert Dry Solutions sent to SFIC via email their direction to pay contract for mold assessment and inspection services. On or about August 12, 2024, SFIC received an email from Edry Solutions with the invoice, W9, mold report and mold assessment. On or about August 15, 2024, Insureds counsel emailed to SFIC their letter of representation dated the same date. On August 22, 2024, Insured filed and served their notice of intent to litigation (NOI) which attached the estimate by Elements USA Adjusting dated August 7, 2024 with a total amount estimated of $57,768.44 and an estimates by 911 Dry for EMS services totaling $6400.95. On August 28, 2024, SFIC communicated with Insured’s counsel that they received the request for mediation and SFIC was requesting a re-inspection by DDA Forensics, an engineer. By letter dated September 5, 2024, SFIC responded to the Insured’s notice of intent to litigate with a request to re-inspect. On September 5, 2024, SFIC sent their correspondence dated the same date responding to the NOI requesting a re-inspection of the property in response. On September 10, 2024, Rafael Suero, PE, an Engineer with DDA Forensics, FL inspected the property at the request of SFIC. The engineer determined there was no hail damage observed and although there was wind damage observed the wind speeds researched were not high enough to cause the damage when reported. On September 20, 2024, SFIC communicated with Insured’s counsel that the inspection by the engineer was completed and SFIC was awaiting the engineer invoice. By letter dated September 26, 2024, SFIC sent to Insured’s counsel a stand by the denial decision letter acknowledging receipt of the presuit settlement demand. On or about October 16, 2024, 911 sent via email to SFIC their invoice for re-tarping. On December 11, 2024, mediation with DFS which resulted in an impasse. By letter dated December 11, 2024, SFIC sent to Insured’s counsel a correspondence acknowledging the insured’s dispute with the claim determination and outlining that a mediation was requested and completed but an amicable resolution could not be reached and that did not alter SFIC’s prior claim determination. This was sent the same day via email by SFIC to insured’s counsel. Thus, contrary to the allegations contained in the Notice, SFIC complied with all of its obligations under the policy and Florida law and handled the claim in good faith. SFIC specifically denies each and every allegation contained in the Notice. After the claim was reported to SFIC they completed a prompt and thorough investigation of the Insured’s claim and made a prompt coverage determination. When SFIC received the Insureds notice of intent to litigate SFIC immediately requested and an inspection by an engineer whose conclusion supported the denial. SFIC also had their Field adjuster and a leak detection company, Sleuth, inspect which all supported the denial. The Notice does not comply with the requirement set forth by Fla. Stat. §624.155 indicating that the Insured must specify the policy provisions the insurer allegedly violated. The Notice includes alleged violations and generically points to policy provision titles but not specifically to where it would be covered under this policy especially where the observed alleged damages appear to have been caused before the policy was in effect. Regardless, the provisions claimed are not relevant or applicable to the facts contained in the Notice. Because the Insured failed to identify any specific policy provisions in the Notice, SFIC is not able to properly respond. Therefore, the Notice should be rejected. The Notice does not contain the specifics required by Florida Statute 627.155(3)(b). The Statute requires the Notice to “state with specificity” the statutory provision allegedly violated and specific language of the statute which the insurer allegedly violated, the facts giving rise to the violation, the name of any individual involved in the violation, and the policy language that is relevant to the violation. The Notice identifies a number of statutory provisions but does not provide the specific policy language relevant to any alleged violation and does not specify any allegations of ultimate fact showing how any provision was allegedly violated. Insured claims that they have established that the loss occurred during the policy period, however, there are no facts or evidence presented by the Insured to establish this. To the contrary, Security first investigated and inspected and found that there was no hail damage to the roof and the wind damage observed pre-existed the policy inception and therefore did not occur during the policy period and was excluded under the policy. Security first researched and found that the roof leaks alleged by insured were actually not leaks coming from the roof but rather were coming from a previous leak or spill from the attic and not the roof and in the bathroom was coming from repeated exposure and moisture humidity from shower use and not from the roof. Insured states that SFIC prolonged and delayed any fair adjustment and collected the premium with assisting the insured in her hour of need but did not provide any evidence or facts to support this contention. The Civil Remedy Further cites no specific facts or evidence to this claim and investigation to support any of the contentions raised except the amount of money that Insured is seeking to remedy the notice with no estimates attached or outlined supporting same. Additionally, the Notice alleges SFIC did not attempt in good faith to settle the claim when it could and should have done so had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured, that SFIC failed to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims and unfair claim settlement practices. Aside from outlining these allegations, the notice does not specifically allege any facts to support a violation of any of the above and fails to point to any procedures or unfair settlement practices that SFIC has conducted to amount to any bad faith in the investigation and denial of this claim. To the contrary, SFIC promptly acknowledged receipt of the claim when it was reported, immediately started coordinating an inspection and other investigations to inspect the loss, and scheduled inspections. SFIC promptly investigated the claim and attempted multiple times with Insured and their representatives to requested additional information directly from insured to assist as well as to the Insured’s Counsel and after receiving the information from said investigation promptly sent a claim determination to Insured’s and their representatives. The allegations as presented in the Notice are completely unfounded and unsupported. The Notice sets forth numerous unsupported, blanket allegations regarding SFIC’s handling and adjustment of the claim. However, these allegations are conclusory and completely unsupported. SFIC promptly responded to the claim and has at all times acted in good faith and with due regard towards its Insured. Security First Insurance Company has made every effort to, and has in fact, fully addressed the issues alleged in the Notice. The Notice requests demands that are improper according to Florida law and Fla. Stat. §624.155. See Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1281 (Fla. 2000). The Talat decision provides that a “cure” must be limited to contract damages, not public adjuster fees, attorney’s fees, and related alleged extra contractual damages. To the extent the Notice requests anything other than contract proceeds, the Notice is defective, and the Notice should be rejected. For the reasons stated above, Security First Insurance Company requests that the Notice be rejected for its failure to comply with Fla. Stat. §624.155 and Florida case law. If the Notice is not rejected, Security First Insurance Company denies each and every allegation in the Notice and believes any alleged violations have been cured. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely, /s/ Hope R. Touchton Hope Touchton, Esq. Fl Bar no 60043 cc: Security First 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