Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     811087
Filing Accepted:  3/13/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
SOUTH SHORE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC.   First Name  
Street Address * 12450-12456 SW KINGSWAY CIR ARCADIA, FLORIDA 34269
City, State Zip * ARCADIA, FL 34269
Email Address * LSANBORN0214@GMAIL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   SOUTH SHORE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC.   First Name  
Policy # * 3311907452 Claim #* 05000001021
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* MCELWEE First Name * JARED Initial
Street Address* 350 NORTH LAKE DESTINY ROAD
City, State Zip* MAITLAND , FLORIDA 32751
Email Address * JMCELWEE@ITSABOUTJUSTICE.LAW
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):* N/A
Type of Insurance * Commercial Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
Claim Delay
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Unfair Trade Practice
* Statutory provision(s) which the insurer allegedly violated.
 
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)(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.

A. Coverage 1. Covered Property E. Loss Conditions 2. Appraisal 4. Loss Payment 3. Replacement Cost Florida Changes D. The Loss Payment Condition
 
* 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 9/28/2022, South Shore Condominium Association Inc. (“Insureds”), suffered damage to their home located at 12450-12456 SW Kingsway Cir Arcadia, Florida 34269 as a result of a storm event. Prior to the loss, Frontline Insurance Unlimited Company, had issued a policy of insurance (Policy No.: 3311907452) for the Insureds’ property. Said policy, which was issued prior to the loss, was in full force and effect and afforded coverage for damage caused by the storm. Frontline was timely notified of the loss by the Insureds and assigned claim number 05000001021. During the course of Frontline’s investigation, the Insureds made their property available for inspection, provided facts and information surrounding the loss, and complied with the Insurer’s adjustment of the claim. Although Frontline acknowledged the Insureds’ property was damaged by the storm, Frontline inexplicably underpaid a majority of the damages claimed by the Insureds. Frontline came to its coverage determination by ignoring relevant facts and information provided by the Insureds and their contractors that established the damages to the property were substantial and required a full replacement. Most concerning, Frontline and its representatives intentionally downplayed and misrepresented the scope of the damages. Frontline failed to conduct a thorough evaluation as to the age and reparability of the damaged property that caused it to substantially undervalue the loss as a whole. Frontline also omitted key facts from its coverage decision and misapplied exclusions to minimize its financial exposure in the claim. Frontline proceeded to invoke appraisal but refused to cooperate in completing the appraisal panel selection. As a result of Frontline’s flawed investigation, refusal to tender the benefits owed under the policy, and refusal to cooperate in selecting the appraisal panel, the Insureds were forced to pursue litigation against Frontline for breach of contract. Frontline, following the initiation of litigation, cooperated with the appraisal process and the appraisal was completed. The appraisal panel awarded $1,302,759.86 as a replacement cost value after Frontline originally concluded South Shore was only entitled to $154,504.89. The appraisal award called for $385,174.12 in recoverable depreciation which Frontline withheld even though in possession of documentation showing Insureds had already incurred those amounts. On August 20, 2024, Insureds provided documentation once again to Frontline showing they have incurred costs of $1,415,398.93 in completing repairs to the property, well in excess of the appraisal award. Frontline continues to refuse to release the recoverable depreciation. It is clear that Frontline has not acted honestly or fairly towards its Insureds. Frontline and its representatives have failed to conduct a proper investigation of the loss, misrepresented the cause and scope of damages at the residence, and misapplied exclusions in the policy in order to wrongfully underpay the Insureds’ claim. It has become a general business practice of Frontline to not implement proper claims handling procedures, to hire consultants that routinely ignore or intentionally misidentify relevant evidence, and to not settle claims in good faith when under all circumstances it should have. As is the case here, it is a pattern and practice for Frontline to arbitrarily undervalue claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon information and evidence available to it. It is also a general business practice of Frontline to not respond to claim communications, to not explain what information is necessary to process the claim, and to not explain why benefits are continuing to be withheld under the policy. Frontline’s actions are part of a broader scheme to delay claims and avoid issuing payment that Frontline knows is owed to its insureds. In order to cure this civil remedy notice, Frontline must tender the recoverable depreciation in the amount of $385,174.12. The written explanation of benefits and payment should be issued to the Insureds’ counsel, Jared McElwee, Esq., at 350 N. Lake Destiny Road, Suite 300, Maitland, FL 32751.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
mkranzler@chartwelllaw.com 04-03-2025 April 3, 2025 VIA E-MAIL: jmcelwee@itsaboutjustice.law South Shore Villas Condominium Association, Inc. c/o Jared A McElwee 350 North Lake Destiny Road Maitland, FL 32751 Re: Insurer: Frontline Insurance Unlimited Company Insureds: South Shore Villas Condominium Association, Inc. DFS Filing Number: 811087 Filing Accepted Date: March 13, 2025 Policy Number: 3311907452 Claim Number: 05000001591 To Whom It May Concern: This firm represents Frontline Insurance Unlimited Company (hereinafter “Frontline”) in connection with a claim submitted by South Shore Villas Condominium Association, Inc., following a purported Hurricane Ian loss said to have occurred on or about September 28, 2022. This correspondence shall serve as a formal response by Frontline to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation (hereinafter “CRN”), filing number 811087, and associated with policy number 3311907452. 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 would further state that the Complainants’ 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. 5th DCA 2003). The Complainants’ CRN is deficient as the limited self-serving facts and circumstances set forth therein are incomplete and misleading. Additionally, the CRN includes a blanket list of 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. Further, the CRN does not contain facts addressing and supporting each of the alleged statutory violations against Frontline, but rather sets forth conclusory allegations of purported bad faith. For these reasons alone, the CRN is defective on its face. In light of the incomplete, misleading, and/or 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 Complainants’ property is a multi-building condominium complex located at 12486-12492 SW Kingsway Cir, Arcadia, FL 34269. Frontline issued a property insurance policy bearing policy number 3311907452 to South Shore Villas Condominium Association Inc, with effective dates of June 28, 2022 through June 28, 2023. This loss was first reported to Frontline as damage due to Hurricane Ian. Upon receipt of the claim, Frontline immediately acknowledged receipt of same and began its investigation. Frontline sent the Complainant an Acknowledgement Letter which reminded them of their contractual Duties After Loss. An inspection of the subject property was coordinated for October 5, 2022. Frontline’s field adjuster noted that while all six buildings sustained damage, five of the six buildings had roofs which could be repaired, and only one roof needed replacement due to the extent of shingle damage. He also noted that wind had blown out the soffit and fascia and downspouts on the building exterior, and interior damage along the north walls of affected units. Based upon the inspection of the field adjuster, Frontline sent a coverage letter dated November 9, 2022 which afforded coverage in the total amount of $190,242.16 across the Complainant’s six building structures. After deducting depreciation and the Policy’s $114,802.73 Hurricane Deductible, a payment was issued to the Complainant in the total amount of $75,089.04 Said coverage letter itemized the portion of this coverage which monies applied to each insured structure. On November 30, 2022, Harbour Ridge Development Inc. prepared an estimate of damages for the Complainant in the total amount of $1,419,430.55. The Complainant then executed a Sworn Statement in Proof of Loss on December 2, 2022 which stated the amount of building damages as “still developing.” The Complainant also obtained estimates from Perma Roof Contractors, Inc. for $55,200 per building to replace the roofs, plus an additional $21,881.07 to replace the pool fence. Additionally, Wrightway Emergency Services invoiced the Complainant for repairs in the total amount of $910,855.80. Frontline then continued its investigation by retaining George Miles, P.E. to perform an engineering reinspection of the subject property as it pertains to the clubhouse and buildings 1 through 5 at the subject property. Based upon his education, training, professional experience, and personal observations, P.E. Miles provided advanced cause and origin opinions from an engineering perspective. A second field adjuster then performed a reinspection of the subject property on April 6, 2023, resulting in an updated estimate of covered damages in the total amount of $212,556.22. Based upon Frontline’s continuing investigation, on May 26, 2023 Frontline issued payment for an additional $79,436.24 in covered damages. The Complainant subsequently filed the instant CRN on June 12, 2023, and the Parties commenced the appraisal process. However, the moment there was any dispute as to a potential umpire, counsel for the Complainant filed a lawsuit which was summarily dismissed by the court. By agreement of the Parties, Frontline did not pursue sanctions against counsel for the Complainant despite such a pursuit having significant merit. The appraisal proceeded, and payment was ultimately issued to the Complainant, with recoverable depreciation withheld until repairs were performed. Counsel for the Complainant repeatedly demanded that depreciation be released, but refused, despite multiple requests, to provide any substantiation whatsoever that said repairs actually had been completed. Indeed, based upon FPIC’s inspection, it appears that the work which would entitle the Complainant to the release of withheld depreciation has actually not been done. Rather than provide the most basic information necessary to entitle his client to further monies arising out of the appraisal in this matter, the Complainant, by and through its counsel, filed a second lawsuit, this time in a different county in a clear effort at “venue shopping,” the original judge having already dismissed their cause of action once. To the extent that this lawsuit was filed before the claimed repairs were actually done, the Complainant may be subject to sanctions for a frivolous lawsuit. ALLEGED REASONS FOR NOTICE: Claim Denial: Frontline denies any improper claim denial 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, and a prompt coverage determination. Additionally, when the Complainant disputed the scope of coverage afforded by Frontline, Frontline promptly acknowledged receipt of same, performed a supplemental investigation, and issued additional payment to the Complainant. Frontline has since repeatedly requested the basic evidence necessary to release withheld depreciation, but the Complainant, by and through its counsel, has refused to do so. At all times material hereto, Frontline acted in accordance with its duties and obligations pursuant to the policy of insurance. 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, and a prompt coverage determination. Additionally, when the Complainant disputed the scope of coverage afforded by Frontline, Frontline promptly acknowledged receipt of same, performed a supplemental investigation, and issued additional payment to the Complainant. Frontline has since repeatedly requested the basic evidence necessary to release withheld depreciation, but the Complainant, by and through its counsel, has refused to do so. 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, thus it is denied. The Complainant submit no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. It is clear from the facts outlined herein the handling and administration of this claim occurred with the utmost expediency and timeliness 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. The facts show that Frontline acted promptly with respect to the investigation of the underlying claim and the Complainant’s supplemental claim, as well as the payment of the appraisal award and multiple requests for the information contractually necessary to release the Complainant’s withheld recoverable depreciation. Frontline made all communications required to adjust this claim in a prompt and appropriate matter. As outlined above, the facts of this claim set forth herein evidence expedient and timely administration of this claim and full and strict compliance with the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Frontline. Furthermore, Frontline is actively engaging with the Complainant to appraise the outstanding disputed amounts. Unfair Trade Practice: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. The Complainant submits no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. The handling and administration of this claim occurred with the utmost expediency and timeliness 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. The facts show that Frontline acted promptly with respect to the investigation of the underlying claim. Frontline made all communications required to adjust this claim in a prompt and appropriate matter. As outlined above, the facts of this claim set forth herein evidence expedient and timely administration of this claim and full and strict compliance with the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Frontline. ALLEGED STATUTORY VIOLATIONS The Complainant alleged a laundry list of 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: 626.9541(1)(i)(2): Denied. This allegation is without basis. The Complainant submitted no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation, simply making conclusory allegations as to the Complainant’s disagreement with FPIC’s investigation, even as he falsely claims that a decision has not yet been made. Frontline has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of claims at all times. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Denied. This allegation is without basis. The Complainant submitted no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation, simply making conclusory allegations as to the Complainant’s disagreement with Frontline’s coverage determination. Frontline has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of claims at all times. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b): Denied. This allegation is without basis. The Complainant submitted no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation, simply making conclusory allegations as to the Complainant’s disagreement with FPIC’s investigation, even as he falsely claims that a decision has not yet been made. Frontline has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of claims at all times. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f): Denied. This allegation is without basis. The Complainant submitted no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation, simply making conclusory allegations as to the Complainant’s disagreement with FPIC’s investigation, even as he falsely claims that a decision has not yet been made. Frontline has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of claims at all times. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g): Denied. This allegation is without basis. The Complainant submitted no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation, simply making conclusory allegations as to the Complainant’s disagreement with FPIC’s investigation, even as he falsely claims that a decision has not yet been made. Frontline has, on multiple occasions, specifically notified the Complainant, through its counsel, of the additional information necessary in order to issue further payment of recoverable depreciation, only to have the Complainant, by and through its counsel, refuse to provide such information. Frontline has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of claims at all times. 626.9541(1)(i)(4): Denied. This allegation is without basis. The Complainant submitted no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation, simply making conclusory allegations as to the Complainant’s disagreement with FPIC’s investigation, even as he falsely claims that a decision has not yet been made. Frontline has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of claims at all times. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE INSURANCE POLICY The Complainant’s CRN references multiple broad Policy provisions which they allege to have been violated. 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. Frontline handled the Complainant’s claim with diligence and at all times acted fairly in the administration of this claim and treated the Complainant 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’s 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 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 alleges a litany of incomplete, misleading, and/or boilerplate allegations against Frontline as alleged acts of bad faith. There are not sufficient references in the CRN to any specific Policy language that is relevant to the allegations of bad faith. Failure to provide such specific reference to Policy language is direct and clear noncompliance 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. 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 sections by Frontline. By responding to the Civil Remedy Notice filed by the Complainant, 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 time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, 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