Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     810361
Filing Accepted:  3/10/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
MARINER VILLAGE CONDO ASSOCIATION INC.   First Name  
Street Address * 1380, 1390, AND 1400 BEACH ROAD
City, State Zip * ENGLEWOOD, FL 34223
Email Address * BILLJAGXKE@AOL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   MARINER VILLAGE CONDO ASSOCIATION INC.   First Name  
Policy # * FIC1-000206427 Claim #* 05000001210
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* FANTETTI First Name * KELLY Initial
Street Address* 109 S. EDISON AVENUE
City, State Zip* TAMPA , FL 33606
Email Address * KFANTETTI@STOCKHAMLAWGROUP.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):* DONNA BRYANT-ROBINSON, JULIA ARNETT, BRIAN BAILEY
Type of Insurance * Commercial Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Claim Delay
Unfair Trade Practice
Other : Improper Investigation
* 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)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h) Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

All Risk Provisions of the Policy SECTION I – PERILS INSURED AGAINST A. Coverage A – Dwelling And Coverage B – Other Structures 1. We insure against risk of direct physical loss to property described in Coverages A and B. 10. Loss Payment provision We will adjust all losses with you. We will pay you unless some other person is named in the policy or is legally entitled to receive payment. Loss will be payable upon the earlier of the following: a. 20 days after we receive your proof of loss and reach written agreement with you; or b. 60 days after we receive your proof of loss and: (1)There is an entry of a final judgment; or (2) There is a filing of an appraisal award or a mediation settlement with us. 1. If payment is not denied, within 90 days after: 1. We receive notice of an initial, supplemental or reopened claim; 2. We agree to coverage; and 3. We determine the amount of benefits.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. Frontline Insurance Unlimited Company (“FRONTLINE”) has breached the public’s trust by its adjustment of Mariner Village Condo Association Inc.’s (“Insureds”) claim of loss. FRONTLINE’s address is 500 International Parkway, Lake Mary, FL 32795. FRONTLINE has failed to create and implement adequate guidelines for the proper investigation and evaluation of claims, claims handling, and for training and supervision of employees resulting in statutory violations as set forth above. FRONTLINE has failed and/or refused to thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigate and evaluate the Insured’s insurance claim for damages. FRONTLINE has failed to promptly settle the Insured’s insurance claim when the obligation to settle the insurance claim had become reasonably clear. To date, notwithstanding the Insured’s pleas otherwise, FRONTLINE has continued to refuse to acknowledge its obligation to conduct a proper investigation, and to tender the full amount of insurance monies due and owing its Insured under the policy. This claim involves the Insured’s property located at 1380, 1390, and 1400 Beach Road, Englewood, FL 34223, which sustained catastrophic damage from Hurricane Ian on September 28, 2022. FRONTLINE has accepted coverage for this loss and has issued 16 checks to the Insured totaling $1,490,363.92. However, the Insured’s damages are much greater than FRONTLINE has paid. Association’s Payments The Insured has directly paid out vendors $794,909.23 as follows: Jeff Plumly $167.21 Mark Reineke $777.52 D. Martin Plumbing $1,653.50 Work at Unit 1380 caused by Ian Tropical Irrigation $850.00 JES $200,000.00 JES $200,000.00 JES $300,000.00 JES $70,025.00 Sedgwick Valuation Services $400.00 Rubber Tree Flooring $8,936.00 Rubber Tree Flooring $8,500.00 Jeff Plumly (Fence) $3,600.00 Total Recoverable Paid by Assc. $794,909.23 Lanais The lanai repairs were paid directly by the owners (not the Association) and need to be reimbursed by the Association, as follows: 1380 – Unit 1 $1,800.00 1380 – Unit 2 $0.00 1380 – Unit 3 $1,700.00 1380 – Unit 4 $1,875.00 1390 – Unit 1 $2,400.00 1390 – Unit 3 $1,924.00 1390 – Unit 4 $2,236.00 Total – Lanais $11,935.00 There is also a separate window replacement proposal from Lemon Bay Glass to an owner, Jeff Plumly, for the wind damage to the windows in that unit. That work still needs to be done. Plumly Window Proposal $56,418.82 The Insured retained a Public Adjuster, Strategic Claim Consultant (“SCC”), to assist in presenting its claim to FRONTLINE. At the beginning of the claim, the Association made a couple of initial payments directly to the mitigation company (Advanced Property Restoration) and the General Contractor (JES). After that, all payments to these companies were made by SCC. Strategic Claim Consultant (“SCC”) (PA) Payments Advanced Property Restoration $126,681.24 Advanced Property Restoration $270,000.00 JES Draw $182,720.61 JES Draw $199,657.16 Total SCC Payments to Vendors $779,059.01 J.E.S., Inc. is the Association’s General Contractor. The original contract with JES for all repairs was for exterior repairs only and totaled $1,130,326.86. The contract was later changed to incorporate the interior repairs, bringing the new contract sum to $1,743,867.16. However, to date, JES has been paid only $1,152,402.77. Therefore, $591,464.39 remains outstanding to JES. See below. Association Payment $200,000.00 Association Payment $200,000.00 Association Payment $300,000.00 Association Payment $70,025.00 SCC Payment $182,720.61 SCC Payment $199,657.16 JES has been paid to date $1,152,402.77 JES Contract $1,743,867.16 JES has been paid to date $1,152,402.77 Still Owed to JES $591,464.39 The Insured is still owed $743,422.53 for incurred costs as follows: Still Owed to the Association All Recoverable Payments made by Association $794,909.23 Lanai repairs made by owners $11,935.00 Plumly Window Proposal $56,418.82 All Vendor Payments made by PA $779,059.01 Amount still owed to JES $591,464.39 $2,233,786.45 Less Prior Payments $1,490,363.92 Still Owed to the Association $743,422.53 All of this documentation has been provided to FRONTLINE, and the Association’s President has submitted to an examination under oath. Nevertheless, FRONTLINE still refuses to tender payment or even participate in a mediation to try to reach a resolution. Instead, FRONTLINE has advised that it intends to propound additional document and EUO requests which are unnecessary. The concept of insurance is that the insurer will investigate and grant timely and prompt indemnity or security against a contingent loss. Florida Statute §624.02 defines “insurance” as a contract whereby one undertakes to indemnify another or pay or allow a specified amount or a determinable benefit upon determinable contingencies. Inherent in that definition is the fact that payment must be made timely and promptly so that the Insured may mitigate its damage and be put back into the position it was in prior to the loss as quickly as possible. FRONTLINE has breached this duty. The Insured was, and still is, forced to expend out of pocket monies to submit its insurance claim, e.g., retaining a public adjuster, an attorney, and other experts to force FRONTLINE to honor its obligations under the insurance policy and to pay all the insurance proceeds due and owing. FRONTLINE has refused and/or failed to tender all the insurance proceeds due and owing to the Insured. FRONTLINE’s refusal and/or failure to settle the insurance claim when under all circumstances it could have and should have done so had it acted fairly and honestly towards the Insured is wrongful conduct. Furthermore, the Insured contends that FRONTLINE’s adjusters and/or representatives financially benefit from such wrongful conduct. In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. During the adjustment of the Insured’s claim, FRONTLINE breached this duty by failing to adhere to and comply with the above referenced obligations. To cure the defects outlined above, FRONTLINE must promptly tender all insurance proceeds due and owing to the Insured that would reasonably place the Insured back into its pre-loss condition, including the tender of accrued interest due and owing to the Insured. FRONTLINE must also promptly and timely communicate with the Insured’s representative(s) to complete the adjustment of the Insured’s loss by participating in good faith negotiations to reach an agreement relating to the parties’ dispute. This notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by Fla. Stat. §624.155.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
kfantetti@stockhamlawgroup.com 07-31-2025 Insured is withdrawing Civil Remedy Notice filed on March 10, 2025, with filing number of 810361.
mkranzler@chartwelllaw.com 05-06-2025 May 6, 2025 Mariner Village Condo Association Inc. VIA E-MAIL TO: kfantetti@stockhamlawgroup.com and Florida Department Of Financial Services Consumer Assistance/Civil Remedy Section Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0322 VIA E-FILING: Dept. of Financial Services Civil Remedy Notice Website RE: MARINER VILLAGE CONDO ASSOCIATION INC. Date of Filing: March 10, 2025 Claim No.: 05000001210 CRN Filing No.: 810361 Policy No.: FIC1-000206427 Address: 1380, 1390, and 1400 Beach Road, Englewood, FL 34223 To Whom It May Concern: This office has been retained by Frontline Insurance Unlimited Company (“Frontline”) in connection with the above referenced claim. Please accept the following as Frontline’s Response to the Civil Remedy Notice (“CRN” or “Notice”) filed on March 10, 2025 on behalf of Mariner Village Condo Association Inc. Frontline denies each and every allegation brought forth in the CRN and denies any wrongdoing in the handling of this matter. Below we include a detailed factual history of the claim handling and actions by Frontline, which clearly reveals Frontline acted properly in responding to the claim and is in compliance with both its contractual and legal obligations. Frontline further states the Insured’s CRN is defective as it fails to comply with the strict governing requirements contained within Florida Statute Section 624.155. Namely, the statute requires that a CRN shall “state with specificity . . . [t]he facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.” Fla. Stat. § 624.155(3)(b)2. Under Florida law, a civil remedy notice must state the facts and circumstances that give rise to an alleged violation with such specificity sufficient to allow an insurer to cure any alleged violation within the sixty (60) day statutory period. See Lane v. Westfield Insurance Company, 862 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). For this reason, the CRN is deficient on its face and should be rejected. The Insured’s CRN is deficient as the limited facts and circumstances set forth therein are false, incomplete, and misleading, as well as insufficient to establish a violation of any statute or policy provision. Additionally, the CRN includes a list of five (5) statutory provisions alleged to have been violated. The referenced statutes, however, do not appear to be pertinent to the subject claim, and the CRN fails to specify each statute’s relative applicability to same. Further, the CRN does not contain specific facts addressing and supporting each alleged statutory violation against Frontline, but rather sets forth only stock, conclusory allegations of purported bad faith, and further makes certain statements of “fact” which are intentionally misleading at best. For these reasons alone, the CRN is defective on its face. In light of the incorrect, deficient, incomplete, misleading, and false allegations set forth in the CRN, Frontline hereby provides the Department of Financial Services with the following facts of the claim that, in and of themselves, disprove all of the allegations brought forth in the CRN. Frontline hereby asserts that all actions taken in the handling of this claim were done so in good faith for the purpose of fair and timely disposition of this matter. CLAIM FACTS The insured property is a condominium building located at 1380, 1390, and 1400 Beach Road, Englewood, FL 34223. Frontline issued a property insurance policy bearing policy number FIC1-000206427 to the Insured, Mariner Village Condo Association, Inc., with effective dates of July 7, 2022 through July 7, 2023. This claim was first reported to Frontline on October 2, 2022, as damages having occurred on or around September 28, 2022 as a result of Hurricane Ian. Frontline promptly acknowledged the claim and commenced its investigation. Frontline investigated the loss with an Independent Adjuster and Building Consultant, and afforded Dwelling coverage to date in the total amount of $1,490,363.92, relative to the Insureds’ monies paid to date totaling $794,909. The Insured has obtained a General Contractor that scoped the exterior repairs for less than the amount of coverage afforded to date, but then expanded the scope to include interior repairs, many of which are not Frontline’s responsibility under the Policy. Regardless, Frontline has continued to evaluate the Insured’s claim, including requesting documentation which was only very recently produced, and seeking Examinations Under Oath of relevant witnesses purporting to have knowledge which would assist Frontline’s evaluation. The first witness offered by the Insures had no such knowledge, deferring to others. The second witness from whom Frontline sought testimony had to reschedule her EUO at the eleventh hour to prioritize a new scheduling conflict. This Examination Under Oath and one other are specifically to reconcile the differences between the Parties’ respective positions on the scope of the remaining dispute. As demonstrated by the narrative above, Frontline engaged, and continues to engage, in a timely, thorough, and good faith evaluation of this claim. As shown, Frontline has at all times fully complied with all obligations imposed by the subject Policy and Florida law. As such, Frontline acted diligently in the handling of the underlying claim. Frontline thoroughly investigated the claim and informed the Insured of its investigation consistently and of its coverage determinations. Frontline asserts that it acted diligently and in good faith in the evaluation and handling of the underlying claim and complied at all times with the provisions of the Policy and applicable Florida Statutes. ALLEGED REASON FOR NOTICE: Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer: Frontline denies any allegation of unsatisfactory settlement offer. Frontline has afforded extensive coverage for this loss, and has continued to investigate the Insured’s claim in order to substantiate the Insured’s request for additional coverage. Frontline acted in accordance with its duties and obligations pursuant to the policy of insurance. Claim Delay: Frontline denies any delay in the claims handling and process of the loss as evident from the facts outlined above. Frontline promptly acknowledged the claim and timely initiated its investigation of the loss. Frontline routinely communicated with the Insured’s representatives, advising of its efforts to evaluate the claim, provided notice of all actions necessary to evaluate the loss and promptly notified the Insured of its coverage determination. Frontline has afforded extensive coverage for this loss, and has continued to investigate the Insured’s claim in order to substantiate the Insured’s request for additional coverage. Frontline acted, and continues to act, in accordance with its duties and obligations pursuant to the policy of insurance. Unfair Trade Practice: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. The Insured submit no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. At no time did Frontline, its agents, or its employees employ any unfair business practice during the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. Improper Investigation: Frontline denies any improper investigation as evidenced from the facts outlined above. Frontline has afforded extensive coverage for this loss, and has continued to investigate the Insured’s claim in order to substantiate the Insured’s request for additional coverage. Frontline acted in accordance with its duties and obligations pursuant to the policy of insurance. ALLEGED STATUTORY VIOLATIONS The Insured alleges five (5) statutory violations in the CRN, however, no specific facts or circumstances are provided to support these allegations. The CRN is simply a recitation of general, stock allegations of bad faith conduct, along with a list of statutory violations that are not specifically alleged or described. Notwithstanding, Frontline denies each and every allegation of statutory violation individually as follows: 624.155(1)(b)(1): Denied. Frontline has not failed to attempt to settle this claim in good faith and has always acted fairly and honestly towards the Insured. As shown in the above factual summary, the conduct of Frontline following its receipt of the first notice of the loss has complied with all aspects of Florida law. Frontline timely inspected the loss and informed the Insured of its coverage determination, and continues to pursue information and documentation to justify further coverage to the Insured. The Insured has submitted no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. Frontline asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligation set forth in the subject insurance policy. 626.9541(1)(b)(3): Denied. Frontline has afforded extensive coverage for this loss and continues to seek out relevant information from the Insured and its representatives to justify further coverage. Frontline asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligation set forth in the subject insurance policy. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Denied. This allegation is without basis. The Insured submits no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. Frontline has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of claims at all times. The aforementioned facts demonstrate that Frontline employed proper and customary claims practices in the investigation and adjustment of this claim, and in strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c): Denied. As shown in the detailed factual summary above, Frontline was prompt and forthcoming with the Insured at all times material hereto, properly advising the Insured of the facts, observations, and Policy language at issue. Frontline asserts its full and strict compliance with the contractual and statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligation set forth in the subject insurance Policy. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h): Denied. This allegation is without basis. The Insured submits no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation, and in fact is expressly aware of what information is still needed and why, after the first witness offered to substantiate the demand for additional damages could not answer numerous materially-relevant questions. Frontline has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of claims at all times. The aforementioned facts demonstrate that Frontline employed proper and customary claims practices in the investigation and adjustment of this claim, and in strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE INSURANCE POLICY The Insured’s CRN references multiple broad Policy provisions which it alleges to have been violated, without any explanation as to their applicability to this dispute. This failure to provide specific reference to policy language and its applicability to the dispute is a direct and clear noncompliance with the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 624.155, rendering the CRN deficient on its face as to form and substance. Notwithstanding, Frontline denies violating any provision or duties set forth in the Policy and further asserts compliance with the Policy and all of its provisions and endorsements. FPIC handled the Insured’s claim with diligence and at all times acted fairly in the administration of this claim and treated the Insured with honesty and with due regard for their interests. All actions by Frontline were done in complete and strict compliance with the Policy. FRONTLINE DENIES ALL ALLEGATIONS IN THE CRN Frontline hereby denies any and all allegations of bad faith by the Insured, and states that it has, at all times material, handled and adjusted the Insured’s claim with utmost good faith. Any and all allegations of bad faith contained within the CRN are expressly rejected by Frontline. As stated above, the CRN is deficient as the CRN itself contains a recitation of general, stock allegations of bad faith conduct, along with five (5) statutory provisions that are not specifically alleged or described. The CRN is therefore non-compliant with Florida Statute Section 624.155(3), which requires that a civil remedy notice of insurer violation “state with specificity”, inter alia, the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation and the “specific” language of the subject insurance policy that is relevant to any alleged violation(s). The Insured wholly fail to provide any specific facts or circumstances giving rise to the alleged violations in the CRN, and instead simply allege a litany of non-specific, boilerplate allegations against Frontline as purported acts of bad faith. Accordingly, the CRN does not provide the contemplated and mandated notice of alleged bad faith that is required as a condition precedent to any civil claim for bad faith pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 624.155. For these reasons, the CRN is denied and rejected. Additionally, as described in detail above, the facts alleged in the CRN are contrary to the actual facts underlying the subject claim. Frontline further denies any and all other allegations not specifically addressed in this response related to the above-referenced Civil Remedy Notice. There has been no violation of the referenced statutory provisions by Frontline. By responding to the Civil Remedy Notice filed by the Insured, Frontline neither waives nor abandons but expressly reserves any and all rights, claims and defenses it has or may have under the terms and conditions of the Policy and applicable Florida law. Herein, Frontline has attempted to fully and adequately respond to the allegations alleged in the CRN. Should the Florida Department of Financial Services have any questions or further inquiry with respect to this matter, please contact the undersigned. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, CHARTWELL LAW, LLP. ______________________________ Michael J. Kranzler, Esq. cc: Florida Department of Financial Services
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