Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     810558
Filing Accepted:  3/11/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
GAGER   First Name   WAIN AND KAMESHIA
Street Address * 20 ALICANTE COURT
City, State Zip * POINCIANA, FL 34758
Email Address * INTAKE2@THEKRFIRM.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   GAGER   First Name   WAIN AND KAMESHIA
Policy # * SIC3181196 Claim #* 202409004004
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* KADIR First Name * ALI Initial A.
Street Address* 986 DOUGLAS AVE, STE. 102
City, State Zip* ALTAMONTE SPRINGS , FL 32714
Email Address * INTAKE2@THEKRFIRM.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   SLIDE INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 17227
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* MARCUS T. HUDSON, ALICIA G. KHAN (“TURNER”), SUANY M. CRUZ, HOLLY N. WEBER, AND ALL SLIDE CLAIMS ADJUSTERS, EMPLOYEES, REPRESENTATIVES, AGENTS, VENDORS, AND/OR ENGINEERS WHO HANDLED THE CLAIM.
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
Claim Delay
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Unfair Trade Practice
Other : Misrepresentation
* 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)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e) Failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and, as to partial coverage, the dollar amount or extent of coverage, or failing to provide a written statement that the claim is being investigated, upon the written request of the insured within 30 days after proof-of-loss statements have been completed.
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)(g) Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h) Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary.
626.9541(1)(i)(4) Failing to pay undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed under first-party property insurance policies within 60 days after an insurer receives notice of a residential property insurance claim, determines the amounts of partial or full benefits, and agrees to coverage, unless payment of the undisputed benefits is prevented by factors beyond the control of the insurer as defined in s. 627.70131(5).
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Slide possesses a complete copy of the subject insurance policy. The Gagers are not in possession of a complete copy of the subject policy and is requesting a copy from Slide. Thus, this CRN cannot cite subject policy language verbatim due to such. Notwithstanding, the subject policy is an all-risks insurance policy and the applicable policy language is the provision regarding coverage of all risks for the dwelling (Language such as “We insure against direct physical loss to property…”, “We insure against risk of direct loss to property…”, among other similar policy language etc. is typically used.) and provisions regarding exclusions or limitations to this all-risks provision.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Wain and Kameshia Gager (“the Gagers”) are homeowner insureds with an all-risks policy issued by Slide Insurance Company (“Slide”). The insured property or home is located at 20 Alicante Court, Poinciana, Florida 34758. In August of 2024, Tropical Storm Debby caused extensive damage to the Gagers’ home. The Gagers timely reported an insurance claim for this damage to Slide and fully cooperated with all requests for inspections. They provided all requested documentation, if any, and complied with all post loss policy conditions. After reporting the claim, Slide retained an unqualified and biased field adjuster who has a financial relationship with Slide. This field adjuster inspected the Gagers’ home in an apparent effort to minimize Slide’s losses instead of adjusting the claim in good faith in due regard for the Gagers’ interests. Despite that Slide’s admitted coverage should be afforded as its own “investigation revealed damage to [the] roof and the interior of the dwelling,” it significantly undervalued the Gagers’ claim at only $2,534.69 ACV. Because this amount is less than the subject policy’s deductible, Slide did not issue any payment to the Gagers. Due to such, the Gagers have not been able to permanently repair their home. Indeed, a tarp mitigation invoice as well as an estimate for repair of all damages were prepared on behalf of the Gagers totaling $52,339.69 and were submitted to Slide; well above the amount estimated by Slide. Based on these facts, it is clear Slide unreasonably denied full coverage for the Gagers’ claim in bad faith through its extremely low and unreasonable undervaluation of their claim. Had Slide conducted a reasonable investigation based upon the available information, it would have been evident that affording greater coverage and issuing a substantially higher payment is warranted. Instead, it failed to adopt and implement standards for proper claim investigation as well as misrepresented pertinent policy provisions/facts rather than act fairly and/or honestly with the Gagers in due regard for their interests. Slide also delayed the claim and failed to timely respond to communications. This has become a common business practice of Slide. 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 based on determinable contingencies. Inherent is the fact that payment must be made timely and promptly so that insureds may mitigate their damages and be put back into the position they were in prior to the loss as quickly as possible. Slide has breached this duty by refusing to properly and timely adjust the loss. As a result, the Gagers will have no choice but to retain the undersigned counsel to file a lawsuit against Slide. Slide has more than enough information and is still refusing to accept coverage for this claim. This continued and repeated reckless claim delay and denial of coverage will result in a significant punitive damage award if a bad faith lawsuit is filed. Slide can avoid a lawsuit for bad faith by immediately accepting full coverage under the subject insurance policy for this claim and by paying the Gagers $46,339.69, which is the policy limit for coverage A less the 2% hurricane deductible.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
mnixon@slideinsurance.com 03-31-2025 Via E-mail & Posting on DFS Website Ali A. Kadir, Esq. Kuhn Raslavich, P.A. 986 Douglas Ave, Suite 102 Altamonte Springs, FL 32714 Intake2@thekrfirm.com Complainant: Wain and Kameshia Gager Insured: Wain and Kameshia Gager Claim No: 202409004004 Policy No: SIC3181196 Date of loss: 08/03/24 CRN Filing No.: 810558 Dear Mr. Kadir: Please allow this correspondence to serve as Slide Insurance Company’s (“Slide”)’s response to the Civil Remedy Notice (“CRN”) that was filed on behalf of Wain and Kameshia Gager (“Insured”). Herein, we include a brief factual history of the underlying claim and actions by Slide which reveals it has acted properly in responding to the underlying claim and in compliance with its contractual and legal obligations. Slide denies each and every allegation brought forth in the CRN and denies any wrongdoing in the handling of the underlying claim. Additionally, Slide denies violating any Florida Statute or Administrative Code as set forth more specifically herein. Moreover, Slide denies violating any provisions or duties set forth in the applicable policy of insurance. Slide further states that the facts and circumstances that are set forth in the CRN, while incomplete and misleading, do not give rise to any violation of any statute or policy provision referenced in the Notice. Furthermore, Slide challenges the validity of the CRN for lacking specificity. See, e.g., Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So.3d 875, 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (affirming dismissal for civil remedy notice’s failure to either strictly, or substantially, comply with statutory specificity requirement); Demase v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company, 351 So.3d 136, 138-139 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022) (holding that the trial court properly determined that a CRN that failed to state with specificity the relevant policy language was legally insufficient). Finally, the CRN is improper as the Insured failed to establish that Slide breached the policy of insurance, as required by Fla. Stat. § 624.1551. CLAIM FACTS The underlying claim was reported on September 4, 2024, as a claim related to alleged Hurricane Debby damage in Orange County with a DOL of August 3, 2024. Slide promptly adjusted the alleged loss, including but not limited to, sending Independent Adjuster Holly Weber to inspect the insured property on September 9, 2024. Based on Slide’s investigation and evaluation of the underlying claim, on or about September 16, 2024, Slide notified the Insured that the covered damages did not exceed the Hurricane Deductible. Thus, Slide maintains that it has acted in accordance with the terms of the subject insurance policy, and the law, and has acted in good faith towards the Insured. Slide denies that it violated any statutes or committed the acts asserted in the CRN. Slide neither waives nor is estopped from asserting any and all rights that it may have in law or under the terms of the policy. Slide expressly reserves all such rights without exception or limitation. REASONS FOR THE NOTICE The CRN alleges multiple reasons for the filing of the Notice. However, no specific facts or circumstances are provided to support these allegations. Notwithstanding, Slide denies each and every allegation of violation individually as follows: 1. Claim Denial: This allegation is without basis and therefore denied. Moreover, as previously explained, the claim was not denied. Instead, based on Slide’s investigation and evaluation as to the underlying claim, Slide notified the Insured that the covered damages did not exceed the Hurricane Deductible. As such, Slide acted in accordance with its duties and obligations pursuant to the policy of insurance as well as Florida law. Accordingly, Slide’s actions are adequately supported by law and fact. Thus, this allegation is without basis and therefore denied. 2. Claim Delay: Slide denies any delay in the claims handling process of the underlying loss as is evident from the facts outlined above. Slide promptly acknowledged the claim and timely initiated its investigation of the loss including inspection of the subject property. Slide acted in accordance with its duties and obligations pursuant to the policy of insurance and responded appropriately to information and documentation that was provided. Thus, Slide asserts that this allegation is without basis and therefore denied. 3. Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer: Slide denies that it extended any unsatisfactory settlement offers to the Insured. Slide promptly investigated the loss and the Insured was notified that the covered damages did not exceed the Hurricane Deductible based on Slide’s investigation and evaluation of the underlying claim. Slide asserts that it has acted in good faith towards its Insured at all times. Thus, this allegation is without basis and therefore denied. 4. Unfair Trade Practice: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is wholly denied. The Insured has submitted no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. The handling and administration of this claim occurred with the expediency and timeliness allowed by the statutory requirements imposed upon Slide. At no time did Slide, its agents, or its employees delay the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. The facts show that Slide acted promptly with respect to the investigation of the underlying claim and made communications as necessary to adjust the claim in a prompt and appropriate manner. Information necessary and relevant to the proceeding of the claim was communicated to the Insured or their representatives in an appropriate and timely manner. 5. Misrepresentation: Slide denies any misrepresentation on its part. Slide has been forthcoming and truthful regarding the pertinent claim facts and/or insurance policy provisions relating to the reported loss. Slide acted in accordance with its duties and obligations pursuant to the policy of insurance and responded appropriately to information and documentation that was provided. Thus, Slide asserts that this allegation is without basis and therefore denied. ALLEGED STATUTORY VIOLATIONS The CRN alleges multiple statutory violations. However, no specific facts or circumstances are provided to support these allegations. Notwithstanding, Slide denies each and every allegation of statutory violation individually as follows: 1. 624.155(1)(b)(1): Denied. The underlying claim was investigated and adjusted in as thorough and expedient a manner as possible. Following the investigation and evaluation of the underlying claim, the Insured was notified that the covered damages did not exceed the Hurricane Deductible. Moreover, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 2. 624.155(1)(b)(3): Denied. Slide has not failed to promptly settle the underlying claim. The underlying claim was investigated and adjusted in as thorough and expedient a manner as possible. Following the investigation and evaluation of the underlying claim, the Insured was notified that the covered damages did not exceed the Hurricane Deductible. Accordingly, Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it.  Moreover, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 3. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Denied. This allegation is without basis. Slide has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of claims at all times during the investigation of the subject matter. The aforementioned facts demonstrate that Slide employed proper and customary claims practices in the investigation and adjustment of this claim including, but not limited to, a prompt inspection of the Insured’s property and timely communications with the Insured and their representatives. Accordingly, Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Finally, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 4. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b): Denied. This allegation is without basis. Slide has been forthcoming and truthful regarding the pertinent claim facts and/or insurance policy provisions relating to the reported loss. Slide’s correspondences and communications to the Insured and their representatives proves this fact. Accordingly, Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Finally, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 5. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c): Denied. This allegation is without basis. Slide has consistently acted promptly upon all communications with respect to this claim as previously outlined. Slide has adjusted the underlying loss in as thorough and expedient a manner as possible. Moreover, Slide routinely communicated with the Insured and/or their representatives regarding the underlying claim. Thus, Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Any assertions to the contrary are unsupported by the facts. 6. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d): Denied. Slide has not denied the underlying claim without reasonable investigation of the reported loss. As referenced in the factual narrative above, Slide investigated the reported claim and adjusted the loss in as thorough and expedient a manner as possible.  Accordingly, there is simply no support for this allegation and Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Finally, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 7. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e): Denied. This allegation is without basis.  As referenced in the factual narrative above, Slide investigated the reported claim, and the Insured was notified that the covered damages did not exceed the Hurricane Deductible based on Slide’s investigation and evaluation of the underlying claim. There is simply no support for this allegation and Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Finally, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 8. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f): Denied. Slide did not fail to provide an explanation for its denial of the claim. Slide has conducted a reasonable investigation of the reported loss as referenced in the factual narrative above. Thus, there is simply no support for this allegation and Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Finally, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 9. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g): Denied.  This allegation is without basis.  Slide promptly notified the Insured and/or their representatives regarding the pertinent claim facts and information needed relating to the claim. Slide’s numerous communications prove this fact.  Accordingly, Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it.  Finally, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 10. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h): Denied.  This allegation is without basis.  Slide clearly and promptly notified the Insured regarding the pertinent claim facts and specific information needed relating to the claim. Slide’s communications to the Insured and/or their representatives prove this fact.  Moreover, Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it.  Finally, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 11. 626.9541(1)(i)(4): Denied. Slide has not failed to pay undisputed amounts. As indicated herein, the underlying claim was investigated and adjusted in as thorough and expedient a manner as possible. Following the investigation and evaluation of the underlying claim, the Insured was notified that the covered damages did not exceed the Hurricane Deductible. Accordingly, Slide asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it.  Finally, the Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE INSURANCE POLICY The CRN fails to allege specific violations of the insurance policy and provides no specific facts or circumstances of wrongdoing. The boilerplate CRN merely sets forth blanket allegations of wrongdoing, without further information. As such, the CRN is defective, as it failed to specifically identify the policy language that is the subject of the alleged violation, and further failed to include sufficient facts to put Slide on notice of the alleged violations. Notwithstanding, Slide denies any and all allegations of policy violations. All actions by Slide were done in compliance with the applicable Policy. As indicated above, Slide thoroughly investigated the reported loss including inspection of the Insured’s property. Thus, it is clear that Slide has acted in compliance with the Policy. Slide asserts that it has at all times complied with the terms of the Policy and has complied with all applicable provisions of the Policy and Florida Statutes in the handling of this matter. STATEMENTS AS TO CURING THE DEFECTS OUTLINED IN THE NOTICE The CRN asserts that Slide must tender all insurance benefits due and owing. Nevertheless, the method for curing violations alleged in a Civil Remedy Notice is not determined by the Insured. Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co., 753 So. 2d So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). Accordingly, Florida Statutes Section 624.155 does not impose on an insurer the obligation to pay whatever the Insured demands. Section 624.155(2)(d) would have no effect or purpose under such an interpretation. Thus, Slide reasserts that it has acted in good faith towards its Insured at all times. Slide references to all the facts herein, which unequivocally demonstrate Slide’s expedient and timely administration of the Insured’s claim. Slide further asserts its full and strict compliance with the Policy and reiterates that it has acted properly in responding to the underlying claim in compliance with its contractual and legal obligations. Slide denies any wrongdoing in the handling of the underlying claim. Additionally, Slide denies violating any Florida Statute, Administrative Code, or code of ethics. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the documented facts of this claim establish that Slide acted diligently in its claims response and adequately performed its obligations under the policy of insurance and Florida law. Thus, the facts contradict all allegations that Slide has in any manner acted improperly or contrary to its contractual obligations to the Insured in this claim. Herein, Slide has attempted to fully and adequately respond to the allegations the Insured allege in the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation filed with the Department. Should there be any questions or further inquiry with respect to this matter, please contact the undersigned at (813) 761-1866 or at mnixon@slideinsurance.com. Sincerely, /s/ Michael Nixon Michael Nixon, Esq. Staff Counsel
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