Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     810363
Filing Accepted:  3/10/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
PATEL   First Name   DAXA PATEL AND DINESH
Street Address * 6483 TRACY LN
City, State Zip * TALLAHASSEE, FL 32309
Email Address * WITHELD
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   PATEL   First Name   DAXA PATEL AND DINESH
Policy # * 7304457215 Claim #* 01000111205
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* GUTIERREZ First Name * DANIEL Initial
Street Address* 924 DELANEY AVENUE
City, State Zip* ORLANDO , FLORIDA 32806
Email Address * SERVICE@DGPALAW.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   FIRST PROTECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10897
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* SANDRA CROSBY
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)(2) 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.
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.
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.

The coverage decision correspondence incorrectly relies on the following policy language for its denial of the claimed damages to the roof: SECTION I -PERILS INSURED AGAINST Paragraph A.1 in form HO 00 03 is deleted and replaced by the following: 1. We insure for sudden and accidental direct physical loss to covered property described in Coverages 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.” … 6. Any of the following: (a) Wear and tear, marring, deterioration; (1) Age, collapse, obsolescence, wear, tear; 3. Faulty, inadequate or defective; d. Maintenance; 11. 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; orb. Claims for damages arising out of workmanship, repairs or lack of repairs arising from damage which occurred prior to policy inception. Then the correspondence goes on to generally cite to numerous duties after loss and conditions. Finally, they have failed to properly adjust and pay the claim pursuant to the Section I – Conditions, Loss Settlement provision and the Section I – Conditions, Loss Payment 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 or about January 9, 2024, the home of Dineshkumar Patel and Daxa Patel (hereinafter referred to the “Insureds”) was damaged by a storm. Specifically, the roof and exterior were damaged and interior water damages ensued. The Insureds reported these damages to their homeowners’ insurance company, Frontline Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as “Insurer”). The Insurer responded to the claim and inspected the damages. They advised that their inspection revealed wind damage to shingles, but no damage from hail. They acknowledged coverage for minimal roof repairs, resulting in a payment of $508.15 after application of the deductible. The letter then goes on to cite all the policy revisions referenced above. However, at no point did the letter provide any explanation of the basis in the insurance policy, in relation to the facts, for denial of the roof portion of the claim. Further, there was no identification of who they were relying on for the determination that the roof damage was not caused by the storm. The Insured received an estimate from a contractor for storm damages that included replacement of the roof and totaled $120,566.67 RCV and $117,832.35 ACV. This estimate was submitted to the Insurer on February 20, 2025. However, as of the date of this filing, no additional payments or efforts to resolve the claim have been made. It is clear that the carrier is not treating the Insureds with good faith claims conduct by failing to pay a claim clearly owed, not adjusting the claim and evaluating the loss properly, failing to promptly and fairly provide full and prompt indemnity to the Insured, failing to advise of any information necessary for further processing of the claim, failing to provide a reasonable explanation in writing of the basis in the insurance policy in relation to the facts for the denial of the claim, and failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims by its adjusters. This Insurer is placing the company’s interests before the Insured’s interests when a reasonable carrier in a similar position would have provided full coverage. In particular, it is a business practice of the Insurer to severely lowball storm damage claims with their initial claim adjustment with the intent of effecting settlement of such claims on less favorable terms than those provided by the policy. 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 $117,832.35 ACV (after application of the deductible and reduction for prior payment); and 2.) Pay the statutory interest on the amount of unpaid damages from the date the loss was reported to the date payment is finally made. A copy of this form has been submitted to the FDFS and has been printed out and mailed to the following parties providing them notice of the filing of the Civil Remedy Notice: First Protective Insurance Company DBA Frontline Insurance 500 INTERNATIONAL PARKWAY, LAKE MARY FL 32746 United States Certified Return Receipt # 9589 0710 5270 1009 7574 80
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
gsabatino@whlmlegal.com 05-01-2025 GINA M. SABATINO, ESQUIRE gsabatino@chartwelllaw.com Reply To: Miami Office 100 SE 2nd Street Suite 2150 Miami, FL 33131-5322 Phone: (305) 372-9044 Facsimile: (305) 372-5044 May 1, 2025 SENT VIA ELECTRONIC FILING THROUGH WWW.FLDFS.COM – CIVIL REMEDY SYSTEM Florida Department of Financial Services Attn.: Division of Consumer Services – Civil Remedy Section 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 And VIA E-MAIL: Daniel Gutierrez service@dgpalaw.com DAXA PATEL AND DINESH PATEL c/o Daniel Gutierrez 924 Delaney Avenue Orlando, Florida 32806 service@dgpalaw.com Re: Complainant: Daxa Patel and Dinesh Patel Insurer: First Protective Insurance Company DFS Filing Number: 810363 Filing Accepted Date: 3/10/2025 Policy Number: 7304457215 Claim Number: 01000111205 Date of Loss: January 9, 2024 To Whom It May Concern, This firm represents First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Insurance (hereinafter “Frontline”) in connection with a claim submitted by DAXA PATEL AND DINESH PATEL (hereinafter the “Complainant/s”), following a reported Hurricane Ian loss occurring on or about January 9, 2024. This correspondence shall serve as a formal response by Frontline to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation (hereinafter “CRN”), filing number 810363, recently submitted on behalf of DAXA PATEL AND DINESH PATEL, and associated with policy number 7304457215, claim number 01000111205, and a date of loss of January 9, 2024. Below, we provide Frontline’s response to the above-referenced CRN. Notwithstanding the foregoing, 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 that the Complainant/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 60-day statutory period. See Lane v. Westfield Insurance Company, 862 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 5d DCA 2003). The Complainant/s’ CRN is deficient as the limited facts and circumstances set forth therein are false, incomplete, and misleading. Additionally, the CRN includes a blanket list of seven (7) 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 statutes’ relative applicability to the facts at issue in the claim. Further, the CRN does not contain facts addressing and supporting each of the alleged statutory violations against Frontline. Rather, the CRN sets forth only stock, conclusory allegations of purported bad faith. For these reasons alone, the CRN is defective on its face. In light of the 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 date of loss for this claim was January 9, 2024 and was first reported to Frontline on April 4, 2024, as damage to the roof and interior areas of the insured property. Frontline promptly retained an independent adjuster to inspect the property on April 16, 2024 and an engineer to inspect on or about May 1, 2024. Frontline is set to inspect the Insureds’ supplemental claim on or about April 14, 2025. Initially, Frontline found minimal damage to the subject property and opened coverage accordingly for 1,508.15 RCV. Frontline made a net payment to the Insureds for $508.15 in a Coverage Letter dated July 15, 2024. As stated, after its initial adjustment of the claim, Frontline received a contractor’s estimate from Orange Contracting and Appraisal for $120,566.67 RCV and supporting documentation on or about February 20, 2025 in an effort to support its supplemental claim. This estimate included damage to the interior that was never claimed or discussed with Frontline during the initial adjustment. The estimate is over-priced, over-scoped, and includes alleged damages not caused by a loss on or about January 9, 2024. Frontline requested additional information from the Insureds, but have yet to receive the requested documentation. Further, Frontline re-inspected the subject property with its engineer on April 14, 2025. Throughout the entire investigation of the claim, Frontline’s representatives, field adjuster, and engineer have been communicating with the Insureds and Insureds’ representative throughout the entire pendency of the claim. Despite the foregoing, the Complainant filed the subject CRN on March 10, 2025. As demonstrated by the detailed factual summary above, Frontline has been engaging 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. ALLEGED REASON FOR NOTICE: Claim Denial: Frontline denies any allegation pertaining to the denial of any portion of the subject claim. The Complainants’ fail to submit any facts or circumstances in support of this alleged violation. As demonstrated in the detailed factual summary set forth above, FRONTLINE promptly investigated the loss and properly sent a coverage determination letter to the Insureds in compliance with its duties and obligations under the subject policy of insurance. The Complainants’ assertions to the contrary lack support. Claim Delay: Frontline denies any improper claim delay in the adjustment of this claim as evident from the facts above. Frontline promptly acknowledged the Complainant/s’ claim and timely initiated its investigation of the loss, including an inspection of the subject property, after which FRONTLINE opened coverage for the covered portion of the Complainant/s’ claim. After coverage was opened, the Complainant/s unilaterally procured a grossly over-scoped estimate seeking to maximize recovery for the Complainant/s with no regard to coverage decisions. At all times material hereto, Frontline acted in accordance with its duties and obligations pursuant to the policy of insurance. Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer: There is no basis for this allegation and Frontline denies any allegation pertaining to any unsatisfactory settlement offer with regard to the subject claim. The Complainant/s submit no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. It is clear from the facts outlined herein and handling and administration of this claim occurred with the utmost expediency and diligence allowed by the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Frontline. At no time did Frontline, its agents, or its employees act improperly in the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. FRONTLINE properly inspected, estimated, and made all communications required to adjust this claim in a fair, satisfactory, and appropriate manner. Unfair Trade Practice: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. The Complainant/s 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. At no time did Frontline, its agents, or its employees act improperly in the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. The facts show that Frontline acted promptly with respect to the investigation of the underlying claim, made all communications required to adjust this claim in a prompt and appropriate matter, and was in full and strict compliance with the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Frontline. ALLEGED STATUTORY VIOLATIONS The Complainant alleged multiple statutory violations in the CRN; however, no specific facts or circumstances are provided that support those allegations. Notwithstanding, Frontline denies each and every allegation of statutory violation individually as follows: 624.155(1)(b)(1): Denied. 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 evaluated the claim as promptly as possible under the circumstances and made a coverage determination pursuant to the policy. The Complainant/s were promptly advised of the claim determination, with an explanation of the full basis for coverage and a list of additional documentation which could be provided for additional consideration. 624.155(1)(b)(3): Denied. Frontline has not failed to attempt to settle this claim in good faith and has always acted fairly and honestly towards the Complainant’s. 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 evaluated the claim as promptly as possible under the circumstances, then issued a timely claim determination to the Complainant’s pursuant to the terms of the Policy and Florida law. Frontline asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligations set forth in the subject insurance Policy. 626.9541(1)(i)(2): Denied. This allegation is without basis. Frontline has always been forthcoming in relation to the subject claim and Policy and has not made any material misrepresentation to the Insureds. The aforementioned facts demonstrate that Frontline employed proper practices in the investigation and adjustment of this claim, and in strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Furthermore, the Complainant/s have submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Denied. This allegation is without basis. Frontline has implemented standards for proper investigation of the claims regarding insurance policy provisions during the investigation of the claims. The facts demonstrate Frontline employed proper practices and properly communicated regarding facts and policy terms during the investigation and adjustment of this claim, and in strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Furthermore, the Complainant/s’ have submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d): Denied. This allegation is without basis. As demonstrated above, FRONTLINE promptly retained an independent adjuster and an engineering firm to inspect the insured property to determine origin and causation of the alleged loss. The Complainants’’ assertions to the contrary are unsupported. Moreover, Frontline asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligations set forth in the subject insurance Policy. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f): Denied. There is no showing by the Complainant’s to support this alleged violation. As shown in the detailed factual summary above, Frontline was completely forthcoming with the Complainant’s, properly advising the Complainant’s of the applicable coverage at issue. Complaints do not submit any facts or circumstances in support of this alleged violation. Moreover, Frontline asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligations set forth in the subject insurance Policy. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h): Denied. There is no showing by the Complainant’s to support this alleged violation. As shown in the detailed factual summary above, Frontline was completely forthcoming with the Complainant’s, properly advising the Complainant’s of the applicable coverages at issue. Complaints do not submit any facts or circumstances in support of this alleged violation. Moreover, 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. Frontline also denies any and all statutory violations as pertained to Florida Statute Section 627.70131. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE INSURANCE POLICY FRONTLINE asserts that the Complainant CRN completely fails to identify any specific policy language that is purportedly relevant to the alleged violations. The Complainant merely references several broad policy sections, without referencing any specific Policy language, and the failure to provide such specific reference to Policy language 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. Moreover, the Complainant fails to identify the respective relevance of the referenced broad policy sections to the alleged violations. Accordingly, the Complainant failed to provide FRONTLINE with the contemplated notice of the nature of the policy violations being asserted against it. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Frontline denies violating any provision or duties set forth in the Policy and further asserts compliance with the Policy and all its provisions and endorsements. Frontline handled the Complainant claim with diligence and at all times acted fairly in administration of this claim and treated its insureds 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 Complainant, and states that it has, at all times material, handled and adjusted the Complainant claim with the 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 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. 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 Complainant failed to provide any specific and or accurate facts or circumstances giving rise to the alleged violations in the CRN, and instead simply allege a litany of non-specific, incomplete, misleading, and boilerplate allegations against Frontline as alleged acts of bad faith. Moreover, the Complainant fails to reference any section of the subject insurance policy. The Complainant CRN does not, in any way, identify any provisions of the subject policy that are relevant to the allegations of bad faith. Failure to provide such specific reference to Policy language is direct and clear non-compliance with the requirements of Fla. Stat. §624.155, and renders the CRN deficient on its face, as to form and substance. 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 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. In sum, there has been no violation of the referenced statutory sections by Frontline. By responding to the Civil Remedy Notice filed by Daxa Patel and Dinesh Patel, Frontline neither waives nor abandons, but rather, 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, Gina M. Sabatino, Esq. Gina M. Sabatino, Esq. cc: Florida Department of Financial Service
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