Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     809697
Filing Accepted:  3/5/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
DRAPER   First Name   RICKY
Street Address * 17085 DOLPHIN DRIVE
City, State Zip * NORTH REDINGTON BEACH, FL 33708
Email Address * LDDUCHEINE@DIENERFIRM.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   DRAPER   First Name   RICKY
Policy # * FPH3-000106393 Claim #* 01000119695
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* DUCHEINE First Name * L. DICK Initial
Street Address* 5599 SOUTH UNIVERSITY DRIVE SUITE 304/305
City, State Zip* DAVIE , FLORIDA 33328
Email Address * LDDUCHEINE@DIENERFIRM.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   FRONTLINE INSURANCE UNLIMITED COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10074
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* FRONT LINE ADJUSTER, BROOKE WOLDROP, JENNA COKER THE CLAIMS EXAMINER AND ALL FRONTLINE INSURANCE AGENTS AND REPRESENTATIVES TINVOLVED IN THE ADJUSTMENT OF THIS CLAIM
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
Unfair Trade Practice
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
* Statutory provision(s) which the insurer allegedly violated.
 
624.155(1)(b)(1) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

SECTION 1 PERIL INSURED AGAINST A. Coverage A – Dwelling and Coverage B – Other Structures 1. We insure for sudden and accidental loss direct physical loss to covered property described in Coverage A and B unless the loss is otherwise excluded or limited in this policy. However, loss does not include, and we will not pay for, any “diminution in value.”
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

On or about October 10, 2024, the home of Oksana and Ricky Draper (hereinafter referred to as “Insured” ), located at 17085 Dolphin Drive, North Redington Beach, Florida 33708 was damaged as a result of Hurricane Milton, resulting in physical damage to the dwelling. The property in question is insured by First Protective Insurance d/b/a Frontline Insurance Company, whose address is P.O. Box 958405, Lake Mary, Florida 32795 (hereinafter referred to as “Frontline” ) under Policy No. FPH3- 000106393. On or about October 10, 2024, the insured property sustained damage as a result of Hurricane Milton. More specifically, the roof of the dwelling suffered damage as a result of the hurricane-force winds. The roof damage in turn resulted in rainwater entering the dwelling, causing further interior damage to the master bedroom, the breakfast area and other areas within the interior dwelling. The Insured timely reported the loss to Frontline. Frontline acknowledged the claim and assigned claim No.: 01000119695 to the loss. The policy covers Windstorm and Hurricane losses up to the limit of coverage “A.” The insured mitigated damages, allowed inspection, and otherwise complied with all obligations under the policy. The subject policy provides coverage for sudden and accidental losses and damages arising from windstorms. The loss payment provision and governing law provides that the insurer has a fiduciary duty to in good faith promptly investigate, adjust, and issue payment of the undisputed amount of the loss and damages. See Doe v. Allstate Ins. Co., 653 So. 2d 371, 374 (Fla. 1995) (stating that the obligation of insurance company toward insured is a "fiduciary duty requiring the exercise of good faith"). Frontline from the very onset of the claim began setting the stage to limit and/or deny coverage. The Frontline Adjuster, Brooke Waldrop, conducted a substandard inspection of the loss. The inspection itself was wholly insufficient in both a) the length of time spent at the home by the adjuster, and b) the scope of their inspection. Here, there is significant and extensive damage from the loss in plain view. As such, the insured retained WGAI, LLC as their public adjuster, to assist with the loss. Despite express notice that the insured was represented by WGAI LLC, Frontline continued to communicate with the insured to coordinate and schedule events, inspections despite being told that they are represented by WGAI, and that WGAI needs to be included in all communications and coordination, a wilful violation of Fla. Stat. § 626.854(14)(a) which provides as follows: (14) The public adjuster must ensure that prompt notice is given of the claim to the insurer, the public adjuster’s contract is provided to the insurer, the property is available for inspection of the loss or damage by the insurer, and the insurer is given an opportunity to interview the insured directly about the loss and claim. The insurer must be allowed to obtain necessary information to investigate and respond to the claim. (a) The insurer may not exclude the public adjuster from its in-person meetings with the insured. The insurer shall meet or communicate with the public adjuster in an effort to reach agreement as to the scope of the covered loss under the insurance policy. The public adjuster shall meet or communicate with the insurer in an effort to reach agreement as to the scope of the covered loss under the insurance policy. This section does not impair the terms and conditions of the insurance policy in effect at the time the claim is filed. Fla. Stat. § 626.854(14)(a) After completing its investigation into claim no. 01000119695, Frontline determined that the insured a covered loss. Jenna Coker, Frontline’s claim adjuster, sent correspondence dated October 31, 2024, relying solely on Their Field Adjuster’s inspection unilaterally estimated that the insured sustained $9,789.73 in damage, a below deductible amount resulting in no benefits to the insured. An amount woefully inadequate to bring the insured property back to Pre-loss conditions. The Frontline estimate, excluded numerous areas affected by the loss from their repair estimate. Frontline, excluded, the Breakfast area, the Master Bedroom, the Stairway, the Shower, Vanity room among numerous other areas affected by the loss. To date, the insured have provided with numerous documents and fully or substantially complied with all requests or and policy conditions. Nonetheless, FRONTLINE, to date has issued no additional insurance benefits beyond the undisputed payment it provided to the insured. The insured has fully or substantially complied with all requests from FRONTLINE. The insured has provided FRONTLINE with the following: • Promptly allowing FRONTLINE to inspect the loss • WGAI, LLC Estimate of repairs in the amount of $176,395.10 RCV adjusted to $159,790.10 after adjusting for depreciation and the deductible. • Public Adjuster contact information • A Notarized Sworn Proof of Loss • Approximately 246 Photographs of the loss, The insured has provided FRONTLINE with all relevant information needed to investigate the claim and at all times have cooperated and made the property available for inspection. The insured has faithfully paid the policy premiums with the understanding that in the event of a covered loss to their home, they would be able to rely on FRONTLINE to extend the insurance benefits which they are entitled to, and to assist them during this extremely difficult time. FRONTLINE’s intentional poor handling of the claim are not unique to this claim, but rather appear to be a global strategy employed by which to limit their liabilities and payouts. FRONTLINE, as a business practice, routinely ignores claims, under pays covered claims and unnecessarily delays payment on a claim until they are forced to pay. FRONTLINE as a business practice intentionally drags out claims in order to make the insured suffer in hopes that the insured will give up and simply go away. Here, FRONTLINE has repeated a pattern of immoral, deceptive and unlawful behavior generally described as bad faith conduct which is part of a general business practice that is knowingly being utilized by FRONTLINE for self gain. That said, to the detriment of its insureds and to maximize its financial interests, Insurer disregards the obvious and known obligations by way of the Bad Faith general business practices that are further delineated, described and specified as follows: (a.) Not developing, maintaining and/or instituting policies, procedures, protocol or guidelines to determine whether adjusters/personnel/vendors utilized to protect its insureds were even qualified and trained to duly assess the scope, cause and/or value of the loss; (b.) Insurer has and does arbitrarily and without fixed protocol hire experts to establish a lack of coverage as it relates to a specific claim; (c.) Insurer deliberately undervalues/under adjusts claims, including this Claim, so that it does not have to set proper and fair reserves for the Claim, which has the effect of devaluing Insurer’s stock price because of the excess liability on its books; To cure the above stated immoral, deceptive, unlawful and bad faith conduct which is part of a general business practice that is knowingly being utilized by FRONTLINE, FRONTLINE must issue payment for the full amount of $176,395.10 RCV adjusted to $159,790.10, as set forth in all pending estimates obtained by the Insured (subject to the loss payment provision, as well as policy limits and applicable deductibles).
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
ldduch@hotmail.com 05-01-2025 The insured withdraws the instant Civil Remedy Notice, because its inadvertently filed against the wrong insurer.
peartjean@becklawpa.com 04-25-2025 Department of Financial Services Civil Remedy Section 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0322 Re: Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation Complainant : Ricky Draper Insured : Ricky Draper Policy Number : FPH3-000106393 Claim No. : 01000119695 DFS File Number : 809697 Acceptable Date : March 3, 2025 Insurer : Frontline Insurance Unlimited Company To Whom It May Concern: Please be advised that we represent First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Homeowners Insurance in the above-referenced matter. Please note that your Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation (“CRN”) is defective as it incorrectly identifies the Insurer Name as Frontline Insurance Unlimited Company when the insurer is First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Homeowners Insurance (“Frontline”). Notwithstanding, and without waiver of proper notice to Frontline, kindly consider this to be Frontline’s report to the Department on the disposition of the alleged violations. Frontline maintains that it has not been in any violation of the law and that the CRN filed by Rickey Draper (“Insured”) is defective on its face and fails to comply with the specificity requirements under Florida Statute 624.155. As such, Frontline objects to the Department’s acceptance of the above-referenced CRN. By way of background, this matter involves alleged property damage due to Hurricane Helene flooding, which according to the Insured, purportedly occurred on or about September 26, 2024, and was first reported to Frontline on October 9, 2024 (“Claim”). Frontline wrote to the Insured acknowledging notice of the Claim on October 9, 2024, and advising that Frontline assigned Claim Number 01000119695. On October 15, 2024, Frontline’s independent field adjuster inspected the Insured’s property. On October 24, 2024, Frontline obtained the Recorded Statement of the Insured who stated that the damage to his property for the subject claim is solely related to flood damage due to Hurricane Helene and that he had already reported the damage to his flood insurance carrier. As a result of Frontline’s investigation, inspection, and the Insured’s Recorded Statement, Frontline did not afford coverage for the Insured’s Claim based on flood and storm surge damage, which are expressly excluded from coverage under the subject insurance policy. Frontline informed the Insured of the same in correspondence dated October 28, 2024. On March 5, 2025, the Insured, through their legal counsel, filed a CRN against Frontline, which is a pre-requisite to a bad faith lawsuit under Florida Statute 624.155. The CRN alleges that Frontline engaged in “Claim Delay, Unfair Trade Practice, [and] Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer.” Additionally, the CRN alleges that Frontline has violated numerous Florida Administrative Codes and Statutes. On its face, this CRN merely contains accusations without providing any factual specificity in support. As already mentioned, Frontline maintains the CRN filed by the Insured is defective on its face. Florida Statute 624.155 expressly requires factual specificity. The CRN filed by the Insured merely contains boilerplate language and conclusory allegations used routinely in a litany of other filings. In fact, the Insured’s attorney’s law firm has filed over forty (40) CRNs in approximately the past one year against a multitude of various insurance carriers. This CRN contains the same generic, improper, and legally insufficient allegations that are contained within most, if not all, of the CRNs filed by the Insured’s legal counsel. Moreover, a complainant should not be able to simply file the same generic CRN without containing the requisite specificity. The purpose of a CRN is to place the carrier on notice of specific violations so that they can be corrected during the statutory “cure” period. This CRN fails to meet this requirement and should therefore not be able to proceed on such a defective and improper CRN that contains nothing more than accusations and conclusions without any specificity. As an initial issue, the CRN indicates that only Ricky Draper is the Insured. While Ricky Draper is one of the Named Insureds under the policy, there is also a second Named Insured, specifically, Oksana Draper. The CRN you filed fails to identify, address, or preserve Oksana Draper’s interest as a Named Insured under the subject insurance policy. Secondly, the CRN incorrectly references an insurance claim for alleged Hurricane Milton damage, which purportedly occurred on or about October 10, 2024, under Claim Number 01000119695. As noted above, the Insured reported a claim to Frontline for alleged Hurricane Helene flood damage on October 9, 2024, which purportedly occurred on September 26, 2024, and Frontline assigned Claim Number 01000119695. Notwithstanding the fact that the CRN provides entirely inaccurate information concerning Claim Number 01000119695, the CRN also fails to set forth specific policy language alleged to have been violated in accordance with F.S. § 624.155(3)(b)4. Instead, the CRN mainly references the entire section under Coverage A and Coverage B of the insurance policy. This failure to identify the specific policy language allegedly relevant to the purported violations prevents Frontline from addressing any issues regarding the insurance policy and is another reason why it does not comply with F.S. § 624.155. The CRN further fails to set forth with specificity the names of the individuals involved in the alleged violation as required by Florida Statute § 624.155(3)(b)3. Instead, the CRN merely names a couple individuals and then generically states, “All Frontline Insurance Agents and Representatives involved in the adjustment of this claim.” This vague, blanket statement and broad reference to any individual possibly involved with the subject claim fails to comply with specificity requirements under F.S. § 624.155. The CRN alleges that Frontline violated Florida Statute 624.155(1)(b)(1) for “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.” Frontline maintains that the CRN contains no factual support for this allegation and fails to comply with the specificity requirements under F.S. § 624.155. Notwithstanding, the Insured’s Claim for flood damage stemming from Hurricane Helene is expressly excluded from coverage under the subject insurance policy which the Insured acknowledged and agreed during his recorded statement under Claim Number 01000119695. As such, Frontline has not acted in bad faith in handling the subject claim nor has Frontline been in violation of any law. The CRN alleges that Frontline violated Florida Statute 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) for “failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.” Frontline maintains that the CRN contains no factual support for this allegation and fails to comply with the specificity requirements under F.S. § 624.155. As noted above, despite the CRN’s allegations being premised on entirely inaccurate information concerning Claim Number 01000119695, Frontline promptly and adequately investigated the Insured’s Claim including but not limited to timely acknowledging the Claim, inspecting the insured property within six (6) days from first receiving notice of the Claim, and issuing a clear and unambiguous coverage decision to the Insured on October 28, 2024, which is less than twenty (20) days after the Claim was first reported and well before the statutory time period. As such, Frontline has not acted in bad faith in handling the subject claim nor has Frontline been in violation of any law. The CRN alleges that Frontline violated Florida Statute 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) for “failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.” Frontline maintains that the CRN contains no factual support for this allegation and fails to comply with the specificity requirements under F.S. § 624.155. Notwithstanding, and as explained in the preceding paragraphs, Frontline timely responded and acted promptly during the handling of the Insured’s Claim. As such, Frontline has not acted in bad faith in handling the subject claim nor has Frontline been in violation of any law. The CRN alleges that Frontline “from the very onset of the claim began setting the stage to limit and/or deny coverage. The Frontline Adjuster, Brooke Waldrop, conducted a substandard inspection of the loss. The inspection itself was wholly insufficient in both a) the length of time spent at the home by the adjuster, and b) the scope of their inspection” and “[d]espite express notice that the insured was represented by WGAI LLC, Frontline continued to communicate with the insured to coordinate and schedule events, inspections despite being told that they are represented by WGAI, and that WGAI needs to be included in all communications and coordination, a wilful [sic] violation of Fla. Stat. § 626.854(14)(a) . . . .” The CRN further alleges that “[a]fter completing its investigation into claim no. 01000119695, Frontline determined that the insured a covered loss. Jenna Coker, Frontline’s claim adjuster, sent correspondence dated October 31, 2024, relying solely on Their Field Adjuster’s inspection unilaterally estimated that the insured sustained $9,789.73 in damage, a below deductible amount resulting in no benefits to the insured. An amount woefully inadequate to bring the insured property back to Pre-loss conditions. The Frontline estimate, excluded numerous areas affected by the loss from their repair estimate. Frontline, excluded, the Breakfast area, the Master Bedroom, the Stairway, the Shower, Vanity room among numerous other areas affected by the loss.” The CRN goes on to allege that Frontline’s “intentional poor handling of the claim are not unique to this claim, but rather appear to be a global strategy employed by which to limit their liabilities and payouts,” and Frontline “as a business practice, routinely ignores claims, under pays covered claims and unnecessarily delays payment on a claim until they are forced to pay. Frontline as a business practice intentionally drags out claims in order to make the insured suffer in hopes that the insured will give up and simply go away. Here, Frontline has repeated a pattern of immoral, deceptive and unlawful behavior generally described as bad faith conduct which is part of a general business practice that is knowingly being utilized by Frontline for self gain,” “to the detriment of its insureds and to maximize its financial interests, Insurer disregards the obvious and known obligations by way of the Bad Faith general business practices that are further delineated, described and specified as follows: (a.) Not developing, maintaining and/or instituting policies, procedures, protocol or guidelines to determine whether adjusters/personnel/vendors utilized to protect its insureds were even qualified and trained to duly assess the scope, cause and/or value of the loss; (b.) Insurer has and does arbitrarily and without fixed protocol hire experts to establish a lack of coverage as it relates to a specific claim; (c.) Insurer deliberately undervalues/under adjusts claims, including this Claim, so that it does not have to set proper and fair reserves for the Claim, which has the effect of devaluing Insurer’s stock price because of the excess liability on its books.” Finally, the CRN contains “cures” that are not available under the insurance policy or the Civil Remedy Statute. The CRN alleges that in order to “cure the above stated immoral, deceptive, unlawful and bad faith conduct which is part of a general business practice that is knowingly being utilized by Frontline,” Frontline must “issue payment for the full amount of $176,395.10 RCV adjusted to $159,790.10, as set forth in all pending estimates obtained by the Insured (subject to the loss payment provision, as well as policy limits and applicable deductibles).” Frontline maintains that the CRN’s allegations including but not limited to those referenced in the preceding four (4) paragraphs are improper, unfairly vague to put the carrier on notice of any alleged violations, and do not comply with the specificity requirements under F.S. § 624.155. Importantly, the CRN provides entirely inaccurate information concerning the subject claim including but not limited to the alleged Date of Loss, individuals involved, and documents submitted from the Insured and/or the Insured’s representatives to Frontline. Furthermore, the CRN contains the same generic, improper, and legally insufficient allegations that are contained within most, if not all, of the CRNs filed by the Insured’s legal counsel. Notwithstanding, Frontline maintains that it has not been in violation of any statutory provision and has adjusted the subject claim pursuant to the terms, conditions, exclusions, and exemptions of the Policy and Florida law. On its face, this is nothing more than a recitation of alleged statutory violations without providing any specificity as to the facts of the alleged claim and/or violation, and thus, is statutorily deficient. The CRN merely lists numerous Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Codes without any specific factual connection. Accordingly, the CRN is defective and unenforceable as a matter of law because it fails to comply with the requirements of under F.S. § 624.155. Based on the information outlined above, Frontline requests that the DFS reconsider its acceptance of the above-referenced CRN and further requests that the DFS provide Frontline with a list of the guidelines and requirements utilized by the DFS in determining to accept this defective CRN. As outlined above, Frontline has not acted in bad faith in handling the subject claim, has not been in violation of any law, and has adjusted the subject claim pursuant to the terms, conditions, exclusions, and exemptions of the Policy. Frontline further maintains that the CRN, as filed, is defective on its face as it fails to meet the specificity requirements of F.S. § 624.155. Should the Department require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, JOSHUA S. BECK, ESQUIRE
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