Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     810860
Filing Accepted:  3/12/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
HERRERA   First Name   SEAN; DIAHANN
Street Address * 13929 CHALK HILL PL,
City, State Zip * RIVERVIEW, FL 33579
Email Address * SEANHERRERA@GMAIL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   HERRERA   First Name   SEAN; DIAHANN
Policy # * 59BUU5928 Claim #* 59-75G9-99M
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* BRAZ First Name * TAMARA Initial
Street Address* 8865 COMMODITY CIR. STE. 12
City, State Zip* ORLANDO , FL 32819
Email Address * TBRAZ@THELAWGICALFIRM.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10739
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* • QUILMEKA CREEKS, CLAIMS ADJUSTER, ON BEHALF OF STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY; • GREGORY BAKER, EMERGENCY ADJUSTER, ON BEHALF OF STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY;
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
Claim Denial
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
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)(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)(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.
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)(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.

SECTION I – ADDITIONAL COVERAGES The following Additional Coverages are subject to all the terms, provisions, exclusions, and conditions of this policy. 2. Temporary Repairs. If damage is caused by a loss insured, we will pay the reasonable and necessary cost you incur for temporary repairs to covered property to protect the property from further immediate damage or loss. This coverage does not increase the limit applying to the property being repaired. *** SECTION I – PROPERTY COVERAGES COVERAGE A – DWELLING 1. Dwelling. We cover the dwelling and materials and supplies located on or adjacent to the residence premises for use in the construction, alteration, or repair of the dwelling or other structures on the residence premises. COVERAGE B – PERSONAL PROPERTY 1. Property Covered. a. We cover personal property owned or used by an insured while it is anywhere in the world. This includes structures not permanently attached to or otherwise forming a part of the reality ***
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

On or about October 9, 2024, Sean Herrera and Diahann Herrera (Complainant(s)) suffered a loss to their Property, located at the address listed above. After discovering the damage, Complainant(s) promptly reported the loss to State Farm Florida Insurance Company (“Insurer”). Throughout the Insurer’s investigation, Complainant(s) have fully cooperated with the Insurer and fully performed all duties and obligations under the policy by providing all information within Complainant(s) custody, possession and control. The Insurer, however, has failed to fulfill its duties under the Policy and Florida law. Upon promptly reporting the claim to Insurer, Complainant retained Birds Eye View on or about October 23, 2024 to inspect the property, assess the damages and perform any mitigation work to preserve the subject property. Subsequently, Birds Eye View placed tarping on Complainants roof and issued an invoice of $4,000.00. Following such, on or about October 23, 2024, Insurer assigned a field adjuster to inspect the subject property. On or about November 1, 2024, Insurer sent Complainant a Bill of Rights Letter and a Letter informing Complainant of their duties. In this letter Insurer stated, “If the damage is caused by a loss insured, we will pay the reasonable and necessary cost you incur for the temporary repairs to covered property to protect the property from further immediate damage or loss.” This however was a misrepresentation made by Insurer. Complainants did oblige by their contractual duties and performed mitigation work. Insurer, however, failed to acknowledge or compensate Complainants for this mitigation work as promised in the correspondence it authored. The same day, Insurer issued a pre-mature coverage determination letter. Insurer stated that based on the damages assessed in the pre-cursory inspection by their field adjuster, it was found that the damages incurred to Complainants home fell below the deductible and thus no coverage could be afforded. In this letter, Insurer stated that they estimated damages to the amount of $5,039.00, however, an estimate was never produced. Here Insurer violated Fla. Stat. 70131(1)(e), by failing to produce an estimate to Complainant within 7 days of generating an estimate. Insurer denied coverage by using a baseless amount. Insurer failed to produce any form of evidence or supplemental information to support their conclusions. By failing to provide Complainants, in writing, a reasonable explanation for its denial of a claim, Insurer has violated Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f). Despite denying coverage with little to no information to support its stance, Insurer issued a payment in the amount of $1,260.75 to Complainants on or about November 8, 2024. Amidst Insurer’s mishandling of the claim, Complainant retained the Lawgical Firm as legal representation and to facilitate the claims process. On or about December 16, 2024, a Letter of Representation was sent to Insurer on behalf of the Lawgical Firm. On or about December 26, 2024, Complainants and their agents retained a Loss Consultant on behalf of Property Claims Consultants to inspect the property and assess the damages. On or about December 26, 2024, the Loss Consultant inspected the subject property and found damages to the amount of $49,672.25. This was nearly 10 times as much as Insurer’s initial assessment. On or about January 7, 2025, the Loss Consultants estimate was sent to Insurer. Insurer, however, failed to review, acknowledge or respond to the supplemental evidence that was now in their possession, being in clear violation of Fla. Stat. 627.70131(1)(a). Till date, Insurer has failed to acknowledge this supplemental information. On or about January 31, 2025, Complainants and their agents executed a Sworn Proof of Loss (“SPOL”), which was then subsequently sent to Insurer. Complainants routinely acted within their statutory and contractual obligation. Insurer, however, never responded, reviewed or acknowledged such SPOL. Here, Insurer has been in violation of Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), by failing to act promptly or acknowledge critical information regarding claims. On or about February 22, 2025, 22 days later, Insurer sent Complainants and their agents another estimate finding damages in the amount of $28,305.22. However, Insurer determined a new estimate in damages without ever re-inspecting the property or retaining an engineer. In addition to the estimate, Insurer sent Complainants and their agents a Summary of Loss Statement that included this new value of damages less the deductible and prior payments and issued payment of $21,482.47 to Complainants. However, the very same day, Insurer rescinded the payment, issued a stop-pay for the amount of $21,482.47 and issued a new payment of $1,635.67. Further, Insurer attempted to “revise” their original estimate by showing that it only found damages to the amount of $8,458.42. By deducting the prior payments and deductible, Insurer, now, without any explanation, issued a payment of a mere $1,635.67. Here, Insurer participated in a various mishandling techniques. Upon information and belief, Insurer is misrepresenting the real damages made to the subject property and withholding the rightful remedies owed to Complainants and their agents. Insurer is in clear violation of Fla. Stat. 624.155(1)(b)(3), by failing to settle the claim when the obligation to settle has become reasonably clear. Here, Insurer is in possession of all supplemental evidence and Insurer, itself, has identified damages in the amount of $21,482.47. However, Insurer still failed to abide by its contractual duty and has rescinded its payment with no explanation. Insurer failed to provide any explanation as to why its estimate was revised and where it’s values originated from. Insurer has yet again made a baseless assessment of damages. By altering the estimate to reduce the benefits owed to Complainants and to satisfy an outcome that is most favorable to Insurer, Insurer is in violation of Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(2). Further, on or about February 24, 2025, Complainants and their agents sent a notice that 60-days have passed and Insurer has yet to issue a coverage determination letter. Insurer, now, in possession of all supplemental evidence, has still refused to review the information. If Insurer is in need of any additional information, it has failed to request such. Insurer is now in clear violation of Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(4), by failing to pay the undisputed amounts owed to Complainants and their agents within the 60-day statutory requirement. It is evident that Complainants and their agents have cooperated beyond their statutory obligation and yet Insurer has misrepresented the policy and has purposely delayed the outcome of this claim. These tactics are believed to be the general business practices of this Insurer. Insurer can cure its bad faith conduct by: 1) accepting the Insureds’ damage claim as compensable, and agreeing to pay the claim in accordance with the policy in the amount of $50,775.83, plus interest, prior to the expiration of the cure period, 2) reviewing and responding to all communications from the Insureds and their agents, including the request for a complete copy of the Policy. PLEASE GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
chood@tlsslaw.com 04-30-2025 April 30, 2025 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Sean Herrera Diahann Herrera c/o Tamara Braz, Esquire 3191 Maguire Boulevard Suite 160 Orlando, FL 32803 tbraz@thelawgicalfirm.com RE: Insured(s) : Sean Herrera & Diahann Herrera Claim No. : 59-75G9-99M Policy No. : 80-BU-U592-8 Date of Loss : October 9, 2024 CRN filing number : 810860 CRN filing accepted : March 12, 2025 Dear Ms. Braz: As you know, this firm has the pleasure of representing State Farm Florida Insurance Company (“State Farm”) in connection with the above-referenced claim. This letter will serve as State Farm’s response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (“Notice”) referenced above. The Florida Department of Financial Services assigned Filing Number 810860 and an acceptance date of March 12, 2025. As an initial matter, the Notice is deficient and fails to comply with the requirements of the Florida Statutes. Florida Statute § 624.155(3)(b) requires that a Civil Remedy Notice “state with specificity” the statutory provisions allegedly violated, the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation, the name of any individual involved in the violation, and the specific Policy language relevant to the violation. Rather than include the specifics required by Statute regarding the facts and circumstances giving rise to the statutory provisions allegedly violated, the Notice makes general, boilerplate conclusions. Additionally, the Notice does not provide an explanation as to how State Farm failed to comply with the terms of the Policy with specific factual support pertaining to the alleged incident or how State Farm failed to comply with the statutory provisions allegedly violated. Making general conclusions, without providing further analysis, or discussion of how State Farm violated the Policy and/or statutory provisions, is in direct contradiction to Florida Statute § 624.155(3)(b), which renders the Notice defective. See Julien v. United Property & Casualty Insurance Company, 2020 WL 5652364 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020). The Notice is further deficient in that it fails to list a cure amount. As stated by the Florida Supreme Court, the purpose of a Notice is to put the insurer on notice of an alleged violation, the circumstances surrounding same, and indicate the details of the alleged violation in order to provide an insurer with 60 days to “cure” the alleged claim defects. See Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 753 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). The purpose of Fla. Stat. § 624.155 is to provide the insurer with an opportunity to resolve a first-party coverage dispute and otherwise avoid litigation. See Talat Enterprises, Inc.; see also Lane v. Westfield Ins. Co., 862 So.2d 744 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Further, a Notice must be sufficiently specific to provide the insurer with an opportunity to cure the alleged violations. This would include i) identifying the specific Policy provision(s) at issue, ii) citing specific language of the statutory provision(s) the insurer allegedly violated, and iii) specifically identifying what actions the insurer must take to remedy the alleged violations. Rousso v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., 2010 WL 7367059 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 13, 2010); Heritage Corp. of South Florida v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 580 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1299-1300 (S.D. Fla. 2008). Based on the aforementioned case law, the Notice does not comply with the requirements of Florida law. Additionally, the “facts and circumstances” section of the Notice is not in compliance with Florida law. Contrary to the requirements of Florida Statutes, the Notice makes baseless and boilerplate accusations, and contains minimal specific facts supporting the violations alleged. The Notice alleges that State Farm violated Florida Statute §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. The Notice fails to address specific factual support for this alleged violation. Rather, the Notice alleges that State Farm denied coverage using a baseless amount. Disagreement with the coverage decision does not mean that State Farm conducted an improper investigation or should have settled a claim. As such, State Farm specifically denies that it did not attempt in good faith to settle this claim or act fairly and honestly toward its insured with due regard for her or his interests. The Notice alleges that State Farm violated Florida Statute §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. However, the body of the Notice fails to describe what was done that suggests that State Farm failed to promptly settle the claim when the obligation to settle a claim has become reasonably clear. Further, the Notice does not describe what portion of the insurance policy coverage State Farm used to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage. This is simply a vague generalized allegation. As such, State Farm specifically denies that it failed to promptly settle the claim under the circumstances 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. The Notice alleges that State Farm violated Florida Statute §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. The Notice alleges that State Farm’s correspondence advising that “[i]f the damage is caused by a loss insured, we will pay the reasonable and necessary cost you incur for the temporary repairs to covered property to protect the property from further immediate damage or loss” is a misrepresentation that was made by State Farm. As explained to the Insured, State Farm accepted a $4,000 bid for tarp on the roof and advised the Insured he would have to use $4,000 of his deductible to pay his contractor. A disagreement with the loss payment provision of the policy is not a material misrepresentation made to an insured. As such, State Farm specifically denies that it made any material misrepresentation to the Insured. The Notice alleges that State Farm violated Florida Statute §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) – Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of the claim. However, the body of the Notice fails to describe what was done that was allegedly an improper investigation. The Notice fails to cite to any authority for what a proper investigation should be. It is simply a vague generalized allegation. As such, State Farm specifically denies that it failed to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of this claim. The Notice alleges that State Farm violated Florida Statute §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) – Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. The Notice does not describe any communications in which State Farm misrepresented any facts or policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. The Notice alleges that State Farm’s correspondence advising that “[i]f the damage is caused by a loss insured, we will pay the reasonable and necessary cost you incur for the temporary repairs to covered property to protect the property from further immediate damage or loss” is a misrepresentation that was made by State Farm. As explained to the Insured, State Farm accepted a $4,000 bid for tarp on the roof and advised the Insured he would have to use $4,000 of his deductible to pay his contractor. A disagreement with the loss payment provision of the policy is not a material misrepresentation made to an insured. As such, this is a baseless allegation without factual support and State Farm specifically denies that it misrepresented pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. The Notice alleges that State Farm violated Florida Statute §627.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) – Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. The Notice alleges that State Farm did not acknowledge the Complainants Sworn Proof of Loss, however, State Farm acknowledged the purported Proof of Loss on February 22, 2025 and further advised that State Farm could not accept this document as it was not received within the time frame set forth by the policy. As such, this is a baseless allegation and State Farm specifically denies that it failed to acknowledge communications with respect to this claim. The Notice alleges that State Farm violated Florida Statute §627.9541(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. The Notice does not specifically address which, if any, communications State Farm failed to acknowledge or act upon promptly. As such, this is a baseless allegation without any factual support and State Farm specifically denies that it failed to acknowledge communications with respect to this claim. The Notice alleges that State Farm violated Florida Statute §627.9541(1)(i)(3)(g) – Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim. The Notice does not specifically address which, if any, communications State Farm failed to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim. As such, this is a baseless allegation without any factual support and State Farm specifically denies that it failed to acknowledge communications with respect to this claim. The Notice alleges that State Farm violated Florida Statute §627.9541(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). The Notice alleges that that State Farm is in violation of this statute by failing to pay the undisputed amounts owed to Complainants and their agents within the 60-day statutory requirement. However, as illustrated by the Notice itself, there is a dispute with respect to benefits owed. As such, this is a baseless allegation State Farm specifically denies that it failed to pay undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed. Further, the Notice fails to provide a means by which State Farm can “cure” the alleged wrongdoing per the Policy terms. The Notice states “[i]nsurer can cure its bad faith conduct by: 1) accepting the Insureds’ damage claim as compensable, and agreeing to pay the claim in accordance with the policy in the amount of $50,775.83, plus interest, prior to the expiration of the cure period, 2) reviewing and responding to all communications from the Insureds and their agents, including the request for a complete copy of the Policy.” While the Notice provided a specific amount, it’s unclear how that number was calculated and the applicability of the Deductible or Loss Payment provision per the Policy. As such, there is no specificity as to what payment would be required to constitute a cure of the alleged violations in the Notice. As such, the Notice is facially insufficient as it does not fulfill the legislative purpose of giving the insurer notice of the contractual amounts due, or provide a bona fide opportunity to “cure” the alleged wrongdoing as required by law. See Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, 753 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). See Heritage Corp. of S. Fla. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 580 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1300 (S.D. Fla. 2008), aff'd, 361 F. App'x 986 (11th Cir. 2010); Cady & Cady Studios, Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 320 F. Supp. 3d 1283, 1285 (N.D. Fla. 2018) (noting that "an opportunity to cure' is a prerequisite to suit); Adega v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 07-20696-CIV, 2008 WL 11333855, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 9, 2008) "the condition precedent 'must be satisfied in order for one to perfect the right to sue under the statute.' ") Contrary to the allegations in the Notice, State Farm acted promptly, responsibly, and in good faith at every opportunity in connection with this claim. The failure to provide any factual support for the alleged violations of Florida statutory and administrative law and otherwise comply with the requirements of Florida Statute § 624.155, renders the Notice deficient and in violation of Florida Statute § 624.155. A true summary of the pertinent facts relating to the handling of your client’s claim follows: On October 12, 2024, State Farm received a claim for roof damage at the insured property, located at 13929 Chalk Hill Place, Riverview, FL 33579, with an alleged date of loss October 9, 2024. The claim was reported by the Insureds. Accordingly, State Farm immediately acknowledged the claim and began its investigation. State Farm sent its Homeowner Bill of Rights letter and initial assignment of benefit temporary repair letter to the Insureds on October 12, 2024. On October 12, 2024, State Farm spoke with the Insureds who advised that Hurricane winds blew shingles off the roof. They further advised that the extent of the exterior damage was unknown at that time. The Insureds confirmed that no interior damages were observed. On October 20, 2024, State Farm received communication from the Insureds’ contractor, A Bird’s Eye View Roofing, Inc. The correspondence included the Roof Replacement Agreement and their W9. State Farm’s inspection of the property took place on October 23, 2024. Following the inspection, an estimate was prepared and a coverage determination was made. On November 1, 2024, State Farm sent its coverage determination letter to the Insureds. The letter advised as follows in relevant part: “Our investigation has determined the cost to repair the damage to your covered property and food loss amounted to $5,039.18, which was less than the applicable deductible of $6,062.00. Since the cost of repair is less than your deductible, we are unable to provide a payment. Our investigation represents the State Farm evaluation of your loss. You may wish to obtain your own estimate of the cost of repairs. If you obtain a repair estimate and it is above your policy deductible, please contact me immediately. THIS ESTIMATE REPRESENTS OUR CURRENT EVALUATION OF THE COVERED DAMAGES TO YOUR INSURED PROPERTY AND MAY BE REVISED AS WE CONTINUE TO EVALUATE YOUR CLAIM. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, OR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR CLAIM, WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO CONTACT US.” On November 5, 2024, State Farm received a copy of A Birds Eye View Roofing, Inc.’s W9, Photos, Invoice, and Contract Agreement with the Insureds. The invoice was for $4,000 for Tarp services for the Insureds. On November 8, 2024, after taking the Tarp invoice into account, State Farm sent updated correspondence to the Insureds advising that payment in the amount of $1,260.75 in settlement of the Insureds’ Dwelling claim will be mailed out to the Insureds as the invoice for the tarp brought the claim above the deductible. On November 23, 2024, State Farm spoke to the Insureds and explained that the bid for the tarp on the roof was accepted and the applicability of the deductible with respect to State Farm’s payment. On December 16, 2024, State Farm received a letter of representation from The Lawgical Firm. On January 9, 2024, The Lawgical Firm sent a copy of a repair estimate and photos for the claim to State Farm. The estimate included the $4,000.00 invoice for the tarp and $51,073.19 for replacement of the roof and repair to the dining room, kitchen, and living room ceilings. On January 31, 2025, State Farm received a sworn proof of loss from the Lawgical Firm with an estimate amount of $49,672.25. On February 22, 2025, State Farm sent correspondence to the Insureds that it would be issuing payment in the amount of $21,482.47 in settlement of the Insureds’ Dwelling claim following an estimate reconciliation that was performed by State Farm. Unfortunately, this was sent in error and shortly thereafter, State Farm issued correspondence advising the Insureds’ attorney that a stop-pay has been placed on the aforementioned payment and payment in the amount of $1,635.67. Correspondence was sent in response to the Insureds Sworn Statement Proof of Loss dated February 22, 2025. On March 12, 2025, State Farm was served with a Civil Remedy Notice filed by the Lawgical Firm on behalf of the Insureds, to which State Farm responds through this document. On March 24, 2025, State Farm was served with a Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation. State Farm responded to the Notice advising that State Farm would be providing coverage for this claim subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. State Farm enclosed an updated payment in the amount of $6,544.50 for the Actual Cash Value due for Coverage A. An estimate was included with the correspondence. The correspondence included the following breakdown of payment: Coverage RCV Dwelling Coverage A $23,312.25 RCV Coverage A – Dwelling $23,312.25 Less Depreciation <8,309.33> Less Prior payments <2,896.42> ACV Coverage A – Dwelling Payment $6,544.50 The correspondence further advised that Coverage A – Dwelling payment is calculated pursuant to the Loss Settlement provisions of the policy and payment for the Coverage A – Dwelling is due on an Actual Cash Value basis. Lastly, the correspondence advised that payment for Replacement Cost Value/Replacement Cost Benefits Remaining under Coverage A – Dwelling is payable by State Farm Florida Insurance Company per the terms and conditions of the policy once repairs are completed and the amount of the repairs are incurred per the itemized estimate. The insured may submit a signed contract for repairs for payment consideration for the Replacement Cost Benefits to State Farm. Therefore, without waiving its rights to contest the validity of the subject defective and improper Civil Remedy Notice, State Farm considers the Notice to have been cured. As the facts clearly demonstrate, State Farm has, and continues to comply with both Florida law and the applicable policy of insurance throughout the entire handling of this claim. With regard to the investigation and handling of this claim, State Farm’s actions were prompt, thorough, and conducted in good faith. Therefore, State Farm specifically denies each and every violation alleged in the Notice. We trust this response addressed all concerns raised by the Notice. However, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned should you require additional information. Sincerely, BURKS A. SMITH III MELINA A. LOWE cc: State Farm Florida Insurance Company
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