Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     810173
Filing Accepted:  3/7/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
RAYMOND GERING AND TAMARA GERING   First Name  
Street Address * 5717 CALMAR BREZZE LN
City, State Zip * FORT MYERS, FL 33908
Email Address * RAYGERING@YAHOO.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   RAYMOND GERING AND TAMARA GERING   First Name  
Policy # * P001123105 Claim #* 255781
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* WILKES First Name * LEVI Initial
Street Address* 925 S. FEDERAL HWY
City, State Zip* BOCA RATON , FL 33432
Email Address * LWILKES@KPATTORNEY.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):* BRANDI COMPTON
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
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)(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)(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.

Loss settlement provision
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

On September 4, 2024, the Carrier, by and through its agent Brandi Compton, summarily denied the Insureds claim on a “legal conclusion” and fiction that the Insured had only one year to report an insurance claim regarding Hurricane Ian. This assertion was purely false and the Carrier used manipulative means to attempt to convince, the Insured, its counsel and the judge including but not limited to asking for policy terms to be augments midstream despite no legal consideration for same and no legal grounds whatsoever that would not contradict State and Federal Constitution. See 626.9541(1)(i)(“A material misrepresentation made to an insured or any other person having an interest in the proceeds payable under such contract or policy, for the purpose and with the intent of effecting settlement of such claims, loss, or damage under such contract or policy on less favorable terms than those provided in, and contemplated by, such contract or policy”). The carrier has still refused to pay the fully covered amount owed under the policy despite what it should know was a totally incorrect coverage decision followed by a failure to investigate on the improper conclusion rendered.The carrier is aware of the damage sustained by the insured’s property and person has not taken any meaningful ensuing action. It is clear that the carrier is not treating the insureds with good faith claims conduct; failing to pay a claim clearly owed; not adjusting the claim and evaluating the loss properly, promptly and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to the insureds; failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims by its adjusters and placing the company’s interests before the insureds’ interests; refusing to pay the full amount owed to the insureds despite the fact that the carrier has been on notice of the damages and looking for ways to delay full recovery or any recovery to the insureds, when a reasonable carrier in a similar position would have tendered a full payment in accordance with both the policy language and statutory requirements. The carrier’s actions are in violation of Florida Statutes §§ 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a); 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), as well as Section I- Perils Insured Against, subsection 1, providing coverage for direct loss to property unless the damage was caused solely by an excluded or excepted cause of loss; and the loss payment provision under Section I- Conditions requiring payment of a claim within 90 days. All the aforementioned are part of what appears to be an ongoing pattern and practice of behavior of the carrier that it demonstrates a wanton and reckless disregard for the insureds’ rights and a pattern and practice of bad faith claims practices to its insureds across the state of Florida. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, the carrier must: 1.) Pay the complete covered loss in the amount of $74,620.72, less any prior payments and less any applicable policy deductible; and 2.) Pay the statutory interest on the amount of unpaid damages from the date of loss to the date payment is finally made 3) resolve any and all reasonably attorney’s fees and costs as owed under pending litigation. A copy of this letter and filed form submitted to the FDFS has been sent to the carrier. Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned or Paula Souza at (561)-892-9748 if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Levi Wilkes Attorney at Law
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
Viola.Church@securityfirstflorida.com 04-11-2025 April 11, 2025 Via Electronic Filing: Florida Department of Financial Services Bureau of Consumer Assistance c/o: Civil Remedy Section Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0322 Via Email: Levi Wilkes, Esq. 925 S. Federal Highway, Boca Raton, FL 33432 LWILKES@KPATTORNEY.COM Via Email: Raymond Gering and Tamara Gering 5717 Clamar Brezze Ln, Fort Myers, FL 33908 RAYGERING@YAHOO.COM Re: CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE OF INSURER VIOLATION Filing No.: 810173 Insureds: Raymond Gering and Tamara Gering Insurer: Security First Insurance Company Claim No.: 255781 Policy No.: P001123105 Date of Loss: September 29, 2022 Dear Sir or Madam: This correspondence is in response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (hereinafter referred to as the “CRN”) was filed by Levi Wilkes, Esq. on behalf of his clients, Raymond Gering and Tamara Gering (hereinafter referred to as “Insureds” or “Complainants”). Please be advised that the undersigned represents the interests of Security First Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as “Security First”) with respect to the above-referenced matter. The Florida Department of Financial Services (hereinafter referred to as “Department”) assigned this CRN an acceptance date of March 7, 2025, and DFS File No.: 810173. This matter concerns a property damage claim made by the Insureds pursuant to a homeowners’ insurance policy provided by Security First Policy No. P001123105 and assigned Claim No. 255781. As the basis for filing the CRN against Security First, Insureds assert in the “Reasons for Notice” section violations such as Claim Delay and Unfair Trade Practice, along with the following statutory violations: 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)(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)(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. Security First welcomes this opportunity to respond to the CRN and denies each allegation contained therein. The allegations made in the CRN are premature, as the Insureds have failed to perfect the claim for bad faith and the CRN does not meet the specificity requirement of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. This CRN does not sufficiently support the allegations stated above. I. Perfecting a Claim for Bad Faith Security First specifically denies all allegations set forth in the Notice. Security First contends that the Notice should be rejected and returned by the Department of Financial Services as it is premature. Pursuant to Fla. Stat. §624.1551, there is no potential violation until a breach of contract is established. Accordingly, any Notice filed prior to a finding that Security First has breached the terms of the policy, is not ripe and is premature and thus fails to perfect Insureds’ rights to pursue civil remedies under Florida Statutes. II. Specificity Requirement The Insureds’ CRN violates multiple requirements set forth in the Florida courts’ jurisprudence for CRN’s. In addition, it fails to meet even the most basic requirements of the Statute. Pursuant to the terms of the statute, (3)(a) As a condition precedent to bringing an action under this section, the department and the authorized insurer must have been given 60 days’ written notice of the violations. Notice to the authorized insurer must be provided by the department to the e-mail address designated by the insurer under s. 624.422. a. The notice shall be on a form provided by the department and shall state with specificity the following information, and such other information as the department may require (emphasis added): b. (3)(a) As a condition precedent to bringing an action under this section, the department and the authorized insurer must have been given 60 days’ written notice of the violations. Notice to the authorized insurer must be provided by the department to the e-mail address designated by the insurer under s. 624.422. i. The statutory provision, including the specific language of the statute, which the authorized insurer allegedly violated. ii. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation. iii. The name of any individual involved in the violation. iv. Reference to specific policy language that is relevant to the violation, if any. If the person bringing the civil action is a third-party claimant, she or he shall not be required to reference the specific policy language if the authorized insurer has not provided a copy of the policy to the third-party claimant pursuant to written request. v. A statement that the notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section. In interpreting this statute, courts have emphasized the importance of filing specific civil remedy notices. The civil remedy notice is “crucial to the procedural integrity of an action” under the Statute. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Clohessy, 32 F.Supp.2d 1328, 1333 (M.D. Fla. 1998). “It is, without a doubt, a condition that must be satisfied in order for one to perfect the right to sue under the statute.” Id. “In creating this statutory remedy for bad- faith actions, the Legislature provided this sixty-day window as a last opportunity for insurers to comply with their claim-handling obligations when a good-faith decision by the insurer would indicate that contractual benefits are owed.” Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 2000). Thus, the Notice cannot be “vague and ‘shotgun’ in nature,” rather than “the type of specific notice required by the statute that would allow [the insurer] an opportunity to cure.” Heritage Corp. of South Florida v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 580 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1299 (S.D. Fla. 2008). Because it is in derogation of the common law, Section 624.155(1)(b), Florida Statutes must be strictly construed. Talat, 753 So. 2d at 1283 (citing Baxter v. Royal Indem. Co., 285 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). To perfect the right to sue under the statute, the Insureds must specifically notify the Insureds of any and all alleged violations claimed. Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 952 F.Supp. 773, 776 (M.D. Fla. 1996) (“Talat I”) See Fox v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., No. 8:16-CV-3254-T-23MAP, 2017 WL 1541294, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2017) (sufficiency means specificity). In Junior Julien v. United Property and Casualty Insurance Company, 311 So.3d 875, 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021), the Honorable Court stated: The Middle District of Florida was confronted with a civil remedy notice that was similarly broad in scope and concluded that listing nearly all policy provisions on the notice did not satisfy the statute. Fox v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., No. 8:16-CV-3254-T-23MAP, 2017 WL 1541294, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2017). The court explained that “[i]f the statute contained no specificity requirement, [then] the [Insureds’] casual ‘reference’ to the entire insurance policy undoubtedly would suffice.” Id. But, the court continued, “the Legislature included ‘specific’ or a variant not once but twice in the statute.” Id. As a result, the Insureds’ listing of whole sections of the insurance policy “appear[ed] to lack specificity.” Id. In Valenti, the District Court for the Middle District of Florida considered the practical consequences of an Insureds’ non-specific civil remedy notice. Valenti v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America, 2006 WL 1627276 (M.D. Fla. 2006). The plaintiff’s civil remedy notice included allegations that the defendant conducted an inadequate investigation. The plaintiff, however, failed to identify with the requisite specificity the defendant’s actions that were inadequate. The Middle District held that the plaintiff’s civil remedy notice was insufficient, and stated the following: [T]he civil remedy notice must be specific enough to provide insurers notice of the wrongdoing so the insurer can cure the same within sixty days. … Plaintiffs’ counsel, during the hearing in this matter, argued a civil remedy notice that states “you denied my claim” should be sufficient to place the insurer on notice of what was needed to be cured. Plaintiffs’ counsel further argued that it was up to the insurer, as the insurance expert, to decipher what actions needed to be cured. This argument, in this Court's estimation, is illogical and is counter to the purpose of the civil remedy notice. If a simple “you denied my claim” was sufficient to put insurers on notice, the sixty-day cure period would be little more than a guessing game with the insurer attempting to correctly guess what errors the Insureds claimed it made in the claims handling process, or risk defending a bad faith action. This surely is not what the legislature had in mind when it created the civil remedy notice. Accordingly, this Court finds that Plaintiffs allegation that Defendant failed to conduct an adequate investigation is insufficient to provide Defendant an opportunity to cure. Id. at *2. The guidance for an Insureds could not be more clear. “The purpose of the civil remedy notice is to give the insurer one last chance to settle a claim with its Insureds and avoid unnecessary bad faith litigation.” Lane v. Westfield Insurance Co., 862 So. 2d 774, 779 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Its purpose is not “to give the Insureds a right of action to proceed against the insurer even after the Insureds’ claim has been paid or resolved.” Id. Ultimately, conclusory allegations without facts fail to perfect a statutory bad faith claim. Merely alleging the bare minimum allegations is insufficient pursuant to Florida courts’ interpretations of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. III. The Allegations Made By Complainants are Invalid The allegations made by Complainants lack a factual and legal basis. Complainants have alleged that Security First violated Fla. Stat. § 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.” Security First denies this allegation. At all times, Security First has acted in good faith and in accordance with both the Policy and Florida law. The claim was initially reported on June 25, 2025, with an unknown date of loss, and Security First promptly investigated and issued a coverage decision. On August 1, 2024, the Insureds asked for the date of loss to be changed to September 28, 2022, and Security First conducted a further investigation and revised its coverage decision accordingly. Security First never delayed or improperly denied the Insureds' claim and has complied with all statutory and contractual obligations. Security First acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for their interests while investigating the loss and adjusted to the information provided to it by the insureds. Complainants have alleged that Security First violated Fla. Stat. § 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.” Security First denies this allegation. There is no evidence that Security First failed to promptly settle the claim when the obligation to do so became reasonably clear. The Insured initially reported the loss on June 25, 2024, but on or about August 1, 2024, the Insured requested to change the date of loss to September 28, 2022. Given the significant time lapse and the substantial change in the reported date of loss, Security First was required to conduct further investigation to determine whether the claim fell within the applicable policy period and scope of coverage. Security First acted promptly and in accordance with its obligations by reassessing the claim and issuing a revised coverage decision based on the new information provided. Complainants have alleged that Security First violated Fla. Stat. § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) “Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.” Security First denies this allegation. Security First has established and maintains comprehensive claim-handling procedures that ensure each claim is thoroughly investigated. In this instance, Security First assigned a field adjuster, desk adjuster, and engineer to evaluate the reported loss. After the Insureds altered the date of loss, Security First continued its investigation, reassessed the claim, and issued a revised decision—all in accordance with procedures that ensure each claim is thoroughly investigated. Complainants have alleged that Security First violated Fla. Stat. § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) “Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue.” Security First denies this allegation. The coverage determination speaks for itself. Security First has been transparent in all communications with the Insureds and their Counsel regarding the terms of the Policy, the coverage decision, and the impact of the Insureds’ delayed date-of-loss change. Complainants have alleged that Security First violated Fla. Stat. § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) “Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.” Security First denies this allegation. Furthermore, the Insureds’ allegations lack specificity as to how Security First failed to acknowledge and act promptly. In fact, the record reflects timely and continuous communication with the Insureds and their Counsel. Security First acknowledged receipt of the claim, assigned adjusters, issued a timely coverage decision, and promptly responded to the Insureds’ request to change the date of loss. Furthermore, Security First notified Complainants of the implications of the change, conducted a revised assessment, and issued a second coverage determination in a timely manner. Moreover, before the loss was reported, Security First notified the insureds in writing of the changes to the reporting deadlines and the amendments to Fla. Stat. §627.70132 in January and March 2023. Notably, the Policy references Fla. Stat. §627.70132. Security First did not alter the Policy’s terms; rather, it informed the insureds that the statute had changed and conformed the Policy’s language to reflect the legislative amendments. Complainants have alleged that Security First violated Fla. Stat. §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.” Security First denies this allegation. Security First’s coverage determination letters clearly outline the factual findings and policy provisions applicable to the claim. The initial coverage decision was issued based on the original date of loss reported by the Insureds. When the Insureds requested to change the date of loss, Security First promptly conducted a revised assessment and issued an updated coverage decision. Furthermore, Security First provided several letters and emails to the Insureds throughout the claims process. At all times, Security First has provided clear, written explanations for its claim determinations. IV. Conclusion At all times, Security First has acted in good faith in its handling of the claim and it has acted fairly, honestly, and with due regard for the Insureds’ interest and in determining obligations to Insureds. Specifically, Security First has complied with its obligations under the applicable Florida Statutes and the subject Policy. Security First specifically denies any claim for bad faith and argues that the insured’s claim for bad faith is premature. Security First continues to reserve all its rights under the policy, at law and in equity. Regardless, the Insureds’ conclusory allegations fail to place Security First on notice of any purported violations. Furthermore, the Civil Remedy Notice fails to properly identify, in good faith, how to cure the allegations set forth. The allegations are baseless, inflated, unreasonable, excessive, and without merit. Security First maintains that it properly handled and adequately investigated the claim. We hope that this response has answered any concerns regarding this matter. If the Department has any question concerning this matter, please contact me. Sincerely, _______________________ Felipe Perea, Esq. Staff Attorney Security First Insurance Company P.O. Box 105649 Atlanta, GA 30348-5649 felipe.perea@securityfirstflorida.com
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