Civil Remedy Filing

Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations

Filing Number: 811626

Filing Accepted: 3/18/2025

Print Filing

Complainant

Last/Business Name *

AUSLANDER

First Name

ROBERT

Street Address *

1395 MONTEREY BLVD., NE

City, State Zip *

ST. PETERSBURG, FL 33704

Email Address *

ROBAUSLANDER@YAHOO.COM

Complainant Type: *

Insured

Last/Business Name*		AUSLANDER		First Name		ROBERT
Policy # *		80BZQ6750		Claim #*		597SG109J

Attorney

Attorney is Applicable

Last Name*	FANTETTI First Name * KELLY Initial A
Street Address*		109 S. EDISON AVENUE
City, State Zip*		TAMPA , FLORIDA 33606
Email Address *		KFANTETTI@STOCKHAMLAWGROUP.COM

Violation

Insurer Type *		Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer

Insurer Name
Insurer Name*		STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY
Insurer Name*
Street Address*
City, State Zip*		,
NAIC Company Code 10739

Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* MI’TUAN BURNEY; ETHAN SANCHEZ; NEIL OCHOA; MIKE RUSSELL
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty

Reason for Notice *

	Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
	Claim Delay
	Unfair Trade Practice
	Other : Insufficient 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.
	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)(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.

* 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 – LOSSES INSURED COVERAGE A – DWELLING We will pay for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage A, unless the loss is excluded or limited in SECTION I – LOSSES NOT INSURED or otherwise excluded or limited in this policy. SECTION I – CONDITIONS 8. Loss Payment. We will adjust all losses with you. We will pay you unless some other person is named in the policy or is legally entitled to received payment.

* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. State Farm Florida Insurance Company (“State Farm”) has breached the public’s trust by its adjustment of Robert Auslander’s (“INSURED”) claim of loss. State Farm Florida Insurance Company’s address is P.O. Box 2356, Bloomington, Illinois 61702-2356. State Farm has failed to create and implement adequate guidelines for the proper investigation and evaluation of claims, claims handling, and for training and supervision of employees resulting in statutory violations as set forth above. State Farm has failed and/or refused to thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigate and evaluate the INSURED’S insurance claim for damages. State Farm has failed to promptly settle the INSURED’S insurance claim when the obligation to settle the insurance claim had become reasonably clear. To date, notwithstanding the INSURED’S pleas otherwise, State Farm has continued to refuse to acknowledge its obligation to conduct a proper investigation, and to tender the full amount of insurance monies due and owing its INSURED under the policy. Rather, State Farm has partially denied and underpaid the claim without conducting a reasonable investigation of the available information. This claim involves the INSURED’S property located at 1395 Monterey Blvd., NE, St. Petersburg, Florida 33704, which sustained significant damage from Hurricane Milton on October 9, 2024. The INSURED has damage to their roof, living room and bedroom windows, garage door, and flooring. The claim was promptly reported to State Farm, who accepted coverage for the loss, but initially determined that the damages fell below the Insured’s deductible. Therefore, the Insured was forced to retain a public adjuster. Thereafter, State Farm reinspected the property with the public adjuster and a roofer, and the roofer advised that the roof could not be repaired due to the nail holes from the tarps. Nevertheless, State Farm continues to reject a full roof replacement, claiming that the tarping was excessive. However, State Farm’s own policy requires the insured to perform emergency measures, such as tarping, to mitigate against further damage, and if the tarping is improper, then the policy provides that State Farm can subrogate against the tarping company. Likewise, State Farm claimed that the water damage to the ceilings throughout the house, was caused by the improper tarping, when, in fact, the ceiling stains occurred immediately as a result of Hurricane Milton and were the reason that the roof was tarped in the first place. Additionally, State Farm has refused to pay for the water damage to the downstairs flooring, asserting that it was damaged by flooding. In fact, there was no flooding in the area of the INSURED’s home, and the flooring damage is directly underneath the damaged windows. Ultimately, State Farm completed a revised estimate that totaled just $35,040.16. The estimate includes $4,511.26 in depreciation, and the policy has a $21,994.00 deductible. Therefore, State Farm issued a payment of just $8,534.90. However, in the payment letter, State Farm misrepresented that the deductible was $8,654.00 and that $21,994.00 had been applied in depreciation. Regardless, the Insured has obtained an estimate from a general contractor, CNI Concepts, which has estimated the damages at $178,243.24. This estimate has been provided to State Farm, but State Farm has refused to further adjust the claim. The concept of insurance is that the insurer will investigate and grant timely and prompt indemnity or security against a contingent loss. Florida Statute §624.02 defines “insurance” as a contract whereby one undertakes to indemnify another or pay or allow a specified amount or a determinable benefit upon determinable contingencies. Inherent in that definition is the fact that payment must be made timely and promptly so that the INSURED may mitigate his damages and be put back into the position he was in prior to the loss as quickly as possible. State Farm has breached this duty. The INSURED was, and still is, forced to expend out of pocket monies to submit his insurance claim, e.g., retaining an attorney and other experts to force State Farm to honor its obligations under the insurance policy and to pay all the insurance proceeds due and owing to him. State Farm has refused and/or failed to tender all the insurance proceeds due and owing to the INSURED. State Farm’s refusal and/or failure to settle the insurance claim when under all circumstances it could have and should have done so had it acted fairly and honestly towards the INSURED is wrongful conduct. Furthermore, the INSURED contends that State Farm’s adjusters and/or representatives financially benefit from such wrongful conduct. To cure the defects outlined above, the Insurer must: (1) promptly tender all insurance proceeds due and owing to the Insured that would reasonably place the Insured back into the pre-loss condition, including the tender of accrued interest due and owing to the Insured; (2) promptly and timely communicate with the Insured’s representative(s) to complete the adjustment of the Insured’s loss by participating in good faith negotiations to reach an agreement relating to the parties’ dispute over coverage, scope and amount. This notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by Fla. Stat. §624.155.

Comments

User Id		Date Added		Comment
kfantetti@stockhamlawgroup.com		08-20-2026		Insured is withdrawing Civil Remedy Notice filed on March 18, 2025 with filing number of 811626.
bberger@duttonlawgroup.com		05-05-2025		Dear Sir/Madam: This correspondence shall serve as the response of State Farm Florida Insurance Company (“State Farm”) to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (“Notice” or “CRN”) that the Department of Financial Services (“Department”) accepted on March 18, 2025, and that the Insured’s attorney, submitted to the Department. State Farm denies all of the allegations asserted in the Notice and denies any improper conduct or claims response in the handling of these claims. A first-party bad faith claim is in derogation of the common law and must be strictly construed. See, e.g., Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021); Demase v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 351 So. 3d 136, 140 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022) (J. Sasso, concurring specially). State Farm denies all the allegations asserted in the Notice and denies any improper conduct or claims response in the handling of these claims. As the facts below show, State Farm has acted fairly and with due diligence both in its claim review actions, and towards the Insureds, throughout the claim. FACTS On October 11, 2024, State Farm received notice of a claim for damage from Hurricane Milton at the property owned by Robert Auslander and Melody Mendoza (“Insureds”), with a reported date of loss of October 9, 2024. On October 11, 2024, State Farm spoke to the Insured, Robert Auslander, who reported that screens on his side porch had blown out, roof shingles had been blown off, rain water came in and around the downstairs living room, upstairs master bedroom window and baseboard damage. State Farm issued the Homeowner’s Bill of Rights, Temporary Repairs, a claim acknowledgment, and a personal property infographic that day. On October 15, 2023, State Farm scheduled an inspection to occur on October 22, 2024. On October 22, 2024, Neill Ochoa (“Field Adjuster”), inspected the property on behalf of State Farm. Both of the named insureds were present for the inspection. The Field Adjuster observed water staining to the main bedroom baseboards, causing separation of the drywall. The Insured, Robert Auslander, reported that six windows were damage. The Field Adjuster inspected the subject windows, but no accidental, direct physical loss was observed. The Field Adjuster was unable to inspect the roof because a majority of the roof was tarped. The Insureds were asked to provide photos of the roof. The Field Adjuster observed damage to the retractable patio screens and four damaged window screens on the front and rear elevations. The Insured, Robert Auslander, also reported that he incurred expenses repairing the garage door and the pool pump. The Insured reported $500 of food loss and approximately $100-$200 in damage to flood lights. The Field Adjuster requested that invoices and receipts should be submitted for consideration. On October 25, 2024, the Field Adjuster sent a follow-up request for invoices, receipts, and photographs. On October 28, 2024, State Farm received invoices and photos from the Insureds for the garage door. On November 3, 2024, State Farm issued the Department’s mediation letter, advising the Insureds of their right to seek mediation in the event of a dispute. On November 4, 2024, State Farm issued its coverage determination letter find that there was covered damage to the interior ceilings and baseboards from wind-driven rain. No payment was issued, however, because State Farm’s estimate did not exceed the Insureds’ $21,994.00 deductible. State Farm’s evaluation also revealed wear, tear, and deterioration to the roof system. On November 6, 2024, the Insureds submitted a complaint to State Farm, disagreeing with the coverage decision and requested a total roof replacement. On November 9, 2024, the claim was reassigned to Ethan Sanchez (hereinafter “Field Adjuster”). The Field Adjuster called the Insured and advised that he would conduct a second inspection. On November 12, 2024, State Farm received a letter of representation from Property Damage Consultants (“Public Adjuster”), along with a request for claim documentation and a copy of the policy. State Farm acknowledged the letter of representation that day and provided the claim correspondence. On November 15, 2025, the Field Adjuster conducted an additional inspection of the roof in the presence of the Public Adjuster. The Field Adjuster On December 11, 2024, State Farm received an invoice from CNI Concepts for mold testing in the amount of $1,450.00. On December 12, 2024, State Farm issued its updated coverage determination letter finding that there was covered damage to three shingles on the second-story right slope; 103 linear feet of damage to the ridge cap; damaged window screens and the garage door on the front elevation; damage to the patio/pool screen on the right elevation; damage to the patio/pool screen and pool pump on the left elevation; and interior water damage to the dining room, kitchen, and living room baseboards; damage to the upstairs landing ceiling, flooring, and baseboards; damage to the ceiling and insultation in two guest bedrooms; damage to the baseboards and windows in the master bedroom; and damage to the master bathroom and hallways baseboards. Due to an accidental and unintentional error, the updated coverage determination letter misstated the deductible and depreciation, but the attached estimate accurately reflects State Farm’s position. State Farm revised its estimate in the amount of $35,040.16. State Farm issued payment in the amount of $8,534.90 after application of the $21,994 deductible and the $4,511.26 in recoverable depreciation. On December 26, 2024, State Farm sent the policy, updated estimate, and revised coverage determination letter to the Public Adjuster. On January 10, 2025, State Farm received a sworn statement in proof of loss (“SSPOL”) from the Public Adjuster in the amount of $157,097.43. On January 31, 2025, State Farm responded to the SSPOL, advising that it could not agree to the amount claimed based upon the results of the investigation. On March 18, 2025, the Insureds submitted the subject civil remedy notice. THE CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE (“the Notice” or “CRN”) Notice Against When asked to identify the person or persons most responsible for or most knowledgeable of the allegations, the Notice lists Mi’Tuan Burney, Ethan Sanchez, Neil Ochoa, and Mike Russell. However, the CRN fails to state any specific facts that Mi’Tuan Burney, Ethan Sanchez, Neil Ochoa, or Mike Russell were responsible for or otherwise knowledgeable of. The only specific allegation in the CRN is that Stephen Evans authored the coverage determination letter. No specific allegations of bad faith claims handling are alleged. Civil remedy notices require specificity. See Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (strictly construing section 624.155, requiring specific individuals, and dismissing overly broad allegations). The CRN’s lack of specificity is improper and fails to comply with section 624.155. Without providing any specific allegations that Mi’Tuan Burney, Ethan Sanchez, Neil Ochoa, or Mike Russell were responsible for or otherwise knowledgeable of, the CRN is impermissibly vague, overly broad, and statutorily deficient. Nevertheless, State Farm denies that any of its adjusters, supervisors, management, and/or other individuals violated any policy or statutory provision. At all times, State Farm acted fairly and with due diligence both in its claim review actions, and towards the Insured and their representatives, throughout the claim. Reasons for Notice The following reasons are listed for the Notice: unsatisfactory settlement offer, claim delay, unfair trade practice, and insufficient investigation. Each of these reasons are without factual support and are denied. State Farm addresses each reason below. Unsatisfactory settlement offer: There are no facts to support this allegation. Rather, the CRN’s allegations represent a price and scope dispute regarding the observed covered damages. State Farm inspected the alleged damage property, prepared its estimate of the covered loss, and issued all payments due and owing under the policy of insurance. As the facts above show, State Farm has prepared an estimate in the amount of $35,040.16. State Farm issued payment in the amount of $8,534.90 after application of the $21,994 deductible and the $4,511.26 in recoverable depreciation. State Farm reviewed all documentation and diligently investigated the claim and acted in good faith and with due regard for the Insureds’ interests, throughout the handling of the claim. Therefore, this reason is unsupported, is conclusory, and is denied. Claim delay: There are no facts to support this allegation. The Notice provides conclusory allegations without any support. The facts above show that State Farm made prompt and diligent effort to investigate the claim. State Farm conducted an inspection, spoke to the Insureds, and documented the findings. State Farm requested photographs of the roof that was tarped, along with the invoices and documentation supporting their claims of repairs and other damages. State Farm prepared its estimate of the observed damage and issued its coverage determination letter. After receiving notice of a dispute, State Farm conducted an additional inspection of the property, issued an updated coverage determination letter, and revised estimate. State Farm determined that there was covered damage to three shingles on the second-story right slope; 103 linear feet of damage to the ridge cap; damaged window screens and the garage door on the front elevation; damage to the patio/pool screen on the right elevation; damage to the patio/pool screen and pool pump on the left elevation; and interior water damage to the dining room, kitchen, and living room baseboards; damage to the upstairs landing ceiling, flooring, and baseboards; damage to the ceiling and insultation in two guest bedrooms; damage to the baseboards and windows in the master bedroom; and damage to the master bathroom and hallways baseboards. State Farm revised its estimate in the amount of $35,040.16. State Farm issued payment in the amount of $8,534.90 after application of the $21,994 deductible and the $4,511.26 in recoverable depreciation. State Farm reviewed all documentation and diligently investigated the claim and acted in good faith and with due regard for the Insureds’ interests, throughout the handling of the claim. Therefore, this reason is unsupported, is conclusory, and is denied. Unfair trade practice: This reason is unsupported by the facts or the CRN. The CRN provides conclusory allegations that State Farm performed an insufficient investigation without specific factual allegations. The facts above show that State Farm made prompt and diligent effort to investigate the claim. State Farm conducted an inspection, spoke to the Insureds, and documented the findings. State Farm requested photographs of the roof that was tarped, along with the invoices and documentation supporting their claims of repairs and other damages. State Farm prepared its estimate of the observed damage and issued its coverage determination letter. After receiving notice of a dispute, State Farm conducted an additional inspection of the property, issued an updated coverage determination letter, and revised estimate. State Farm determined that there was covered damage to three shingles on the second-story right slope; 103 linear feet of damage to the ridge cap; damaged window screens and the garage door on the front elevation; damage to the patio/pool screen on the right elevation; damage to the patio/pool screen and pool pump on the left elevation; and interior water damage to the dining room, kitchen, and living room baseboards; damage to the upstairs landing ceiling, flooring, and baseboards; damage to the ceiling and insultation in two guest bedrooms; damage to the baseboards and windows in the master bedroom; and damage to the master bathroom and hallways baseboards. State Farm revised its estimate in the amount of $35,040.16. State Farm issued payment in the amount of $8,534.90 after application of the $21,994 deductible and the $4,511.26 in recoverable depreciation. State Farm reviewed all documentation and diligently investigated the claim and acted in good faith and with due regard for the Insureds’ interests, throughout the handling of the claim. Therefore, this reason is unsupported, is conclusory, and is denied. Nevertheless, State Farm denies any and all conclusory allegations that it has engaged in any unfair trade or business practices to avoid or delay payment of claims. State Farm has, at all times, acted in the best interest of the Insured in evaluating, inspecting, and adjusting the claim. Insufficient investigation: This reason is unsupported by the facts or the CRN. The CRN provides conclusory allegations that State Farm performed an insufficient investigation without specific factual allegations. The CRN amounts to a price and scope dispute regarding the amount of the covered loss. The facts above show that State Farm made prompt and diligent effort to investigate the claim. State Farm conducted an inspection, spoke to the Insureds, and documented the findings. State Farm requested photographs of the roof that was tarped, along with the invoices and documentation supporting their claims of repairs and other damages. State Farm prepared its estimate of the observed damage and issued its coverage determination letter. After receiving notice of a dispute, State Farm conducted an additional inspection of the property, issued an updated coverage determination letter, and revised estimate. State Farm determined that there was covered damage to three shingles on the second-story right slope; 103 linear feet of damage to the ridge cap; damaged window screens and the garage door on the front elevation; damage to the patio/pool screen on the right elevation; damage to the patio/pool screen and pool pump on the left elevation; and interior water damage to the dining room, kitchen, and living room baseboards; damage to the upstairs landing ceiling, flooring, and baseboards; damage to the ceiling and insultation in two guest bedrooms; damage to the baseboards and windows in the master bedroom; and damage to the master bathroom and hallways baseboards. State Farm revised its estimate in the amount of $35,040.16. State Farm issued payment in the amount of $8,534.90 after application of the $21,994 deductible and the $4,511.26 in recoverable depreciation. State Farm reviewed all documentation and diligently investigated the claim and acted in good faith and with due regard for the Insureds’ interests, throughout the handling of the claim. Therefore, this reason is unsupported, is conclusory, and is denied. Nevertheless, State Farm denies any and all conclusory allegations that it has engaged in any unfair trade or business practices to avoid or delay payment of claims. State Farm has, at all times, acted in the best interest of the Insured in evaluating, inspecting, and adjusting the claim. No Violation of Statute(s) The documented facts clearly reflect that State Farm promptly responded to the Insureds’ claim, performed a professional inspection of claimed damages, and advised the Insureds of State Farm’s position on coverage. State Farm acted fairly and reasonably toward the Insureds. Its handling of the claim was responsive to the Insureds, and State Farm remained professional while seeking full and complete information in accordance with the specific terms of the insurance policy in considering whether coverage exists, or payment was due. The CRN fails to state sufficient factual support for these alleged statutory violations. State Farm does not waive any objections by responding to the allegations contained within the CRN. Each of the statutory provisions alleged are addressed below. Section 624.155(1)(b)(1), Florida Statutes: State Farm denies violation of section 624.155(1)(b)(1), because it made a good faith effort to appropriately investigate and evaluate the Insured’s claim. State Farm has, at all times, acted in accordance with the terms, conditions, and coverages of the insurance policy. As previously stated, State Farm conducted an inspection, spoke to the Insureds, and documented the findings. State Farm requested photographs of the roof that was tarped, along with the invoices and documentation supporting their claims of repairs and other damages. State Farm prepared its estimate of the observed damage and issued its coverage determination letter. After receiving notice of a dispute, State Farm conducted an additional inspection of the property, issued an updated coverage determination letter, and revised estimate. State Farm determined that there was covered damage to three shingles on the second-story right slope; 103 linear feet of damage to the ridge cap; damaged window screens and the garage door on the front elevation; damage to the patio/pool screen on the right elevation; damage to the patio/pool screen and pool pump on the left elevation; and interior water damage to the dining room, kitchen, and living room baseboards; damage to the upstairs landing ceiling, flooring, and baseboards; damage to the ceiling and insultation in two guest bedrooms; damage to the baseboards and windows in the master bedroom; and damage to the master bathroom and hallways baseboards. State Farm revised its estimate in the amount of $35,040.16. State Farm issued payment in the amount of $8,534.90 after application of the $21,994 deductible and the $4,511.26 in recoverable depreciation. State Farm reviewed all documentation and diligently investigated the claim and acted in good faith and with due regard for the Insureds’ interests, throughout the handling of the claim. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting the Insured’s allegations have been set forth in the Notice. Therefore, this allegation of a statutory violation is denied. Section 626.9541(1)(i)(2), Florida Statutes: State Farm denies violation of section 626.9541(1)(i)(2), as it did not make any material misrepresentations towards the Insured or any other person. The Notice fails to provide any facts to support this allegation. No policy questions were submitted to State Farm. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting the Insured’s allegations have been set forth in the Notice. Thus, this allegation of a statutory violation is denied. Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), Florida Statutes: State Farm denies violation of section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), as it has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of claims. No specific actions of bad faith claims handling are alleged. No specific actions or omissions that State Farm failed to take are alleged. No purported actions are alleged that State Farm should have taken during the investigation. This allegation is without any support. As previously stated, State Farm conducted an inspection, spoke to the Insureds, and documented the findings. State Farm requested photographs of the roof that was tarped, along with the invoices and documentation supporting their claims of repairs and other damages. State Farm prepared its estimate of the observed damage and issued its coverage determination letter. After receiving notice of a dispute, State Farm conducted an additional inspection of the property, issued an updated coverage determination letter, and revised estimate. State Farm determined that there was covered damage to three shingles on the second-story right slope; 103 linear feet of damage to the ridge cap; damaged window screens and the garage door on the front elevation; damage to the patio/pool screen on the right elevation; damage to the patio/pool screen and pool pump on the left elevation; and interior water damage to the dining room, kitchen, and living room baseboards; damage to the upstairs landing ceiling, flooring, and baseboards; damage to the ceiling and insultation in two guest bedrooms; damage to the baseboards and windows in the master bedroom; and damage to the master bathroom and hallways baseboards. State Farm revised its estimate in the amount of $35,040.16. State Farm issued payment in the amount of $8,534.90 after application of the $21,994 deductible and the $4,511.26 in recoverable depreciation. State Farm reviewed all documentation and diligently investigated the claim and acted in good faith and with due regard for the Insureds’ interests, throughout the handling of the claim. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting the Insured’s allegations have been set forth in the Notice. Therefore, this allegation of a statutory violation is denied. Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), Florida Statutes: State Farm denies violation of section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), as it has never misrepresented any facts or terms of the insurance policy relating to coverages. No questions relating to policy provisions or interpretation were ever submitted to State Farm. State Farm’s evaluation and coverage determination was consistent with, and supported by, the physical evidence observed at the subject property. As previously stated, State Farm conducted an inspection, spoke to the Insureds, and documented the findings. State Farm requested photographs of the roof that was tarped, along with the invoices and documentation supporting their claims of repairs and other damages. State Farm prepared its estimate of the observed damage and issued its coverage determination letter. After receiving notice of a dispute, State Farm conducted an additional inspection of the property, issued an updated coverage determination letter, and revised estimate. State Farm determined that there was covered damage to three shingles on the second-story right slope; 103 linear feet of damage to the ridge cap; damaged window screens and the garage door on the front elevation; damage to the patio/pool screen on the right elevation; damage to the patio/pool screen and pool pump on the left elevation; and interior water damage to the dining room, kitchen, and living room baseboards; damage to the upstairs landing ceiling, flooring, and baseboards; damage to the ceiling and insultation in two guest bedrooms; damage to the baseboards and windows in the master bedroom; and damage to the master bathroom and hallways baseboards. State Farm revised its estimate in the amount of $35,040.16. State Farm issued payment in the amount of $8,534.90 after application of the $21,994 deductible and the $4,511.26 in recoverable depreciation. State Farm reviewed all documentation and diligently investigated the claim and acted in good faith and with due regard for the Insureds’ interests, throughout the handling of the claim. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting the Insured’s allegations have been set forth in the Notice. Therefore, this allegation of a statutory violation is denied. Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), Florida Statutes: State Farm denies violation of section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), as it promptly and timely provided a coverage decision along with its explanation behind its decision. No specific claim communications are identified. As previously stated, State Farm conducted an inspection, spoke to the Insureds, and documented the findings. State Farm has opened coverage and prepared and estimate in the amount of $35,040.16. State Farm issued payment in the amount of $8,534.90 after application of the $21,994 deductible and the $4,511.26 in recoverable depreciation. State Farm reviewed all documentation and diligently investigated the claim and acted in good faith and with due regard for the Insureds’ interests, throughout the handling of the claim. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting the Insured’s allegations have been set forth in the Notice. Therefore, this allegation of a statutory violation is denied. Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), Florida Statutes: State Farm denies violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), as it promptly and timely provided a coverage decision along with its explanation behind its decision. There are no facts supporting this claim. As previously stated, State Farm conducted an inspection, spoke to the Insureds, and documented the findings. State Farm conducted an additional inspection after receiving notice that the Insureds disagreed with State Farm’s evaluation of the claim. State Farm has opened coverage and prepared and estimate in the amount of $35,040.16. State Farm issued payment in the amount of $8,534.90 after application of the $21,994 deductible and the $4,511.26 in recoverable depreciation. State Farm reviewed all documentation and diligently investigated the claim and acted in good faith and with due regard for the Insureds’ interests, throughout the handling of the claim. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting the Insured’s allegations have been set forth in the Notice. Therefore, this allegation of a statutory violation is denied. Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e), Florida Statutes: State Farm denies violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e), as it has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of claims. State Farm timely issued its coverage decision after completing the initial investigation, and State Farm continued to investigate and evaluate the claims and documentation submitted by the Insureds. As previously stated, State Farm conducted an inspection, spoke to the Insureds, and documented the findings. State Farm has opened coverage and prepared and estimate in the amount of $35,040.16. State Farm issued payment in the amount of $8,534.90 after application of the $21,994 deductible and the $4,511.26 in recoverable depreciation. State Farm reviewed all documentation and diligently investigated the claim and acted in good faith and with due regard for the Insureds’ interests, throughout the handling of the claim. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting the Insured’s allegations have been set forth in the Notice. Therefore, this allegation of a statutory violation is denied. Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), Florida Statutes: State Farm denies violation of section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), as it has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of claims. State Farm timely issued its coverage decision after completing the initial investigation, and State Farm continued to investigate and evaluate the claims and documentation submitted by the Insureds. As previously stated, State Farm conducted an inspection, spoke to the Insureds, and documented the findings. State Farm provided a detailed coverage determination letter and estimate stating the results of State Farm’s investigation and evaluation of the claim. State Farm has opened coverage and prepared and estimate in the amount of $35,040.16. State Farm issued payment in the amount of $8,534.90 after application of the $21,994 deductible and the $4,511.26 in recoverable depreciation. State Farm reviewed all documentation and diligently investigated the claim and acted in good faith and with due regard for the Insureds’ interests, throughout the handling of the claim. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting the Insured’s allegations have been set forth in the Notice. Therefore, this allegation of a statutory violation is denied. Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g), Florida Statutes: State Farm denies violation of section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g), as it did not fail to notify the Insured of additional information necessary to process the claim. State Farm requested additional information regarding photographs and invoices from the Insureds. State Farm requested an additional inspection after being advised that the Insureds disagreed with State Farm’s initial evaluation of the claim. State Farm timely issued its coverage decision after completing the initial investigation, and State Farm continued to investigate and evaluate the claims and documentation submitted by the Insureds. As previously stated, State Farm conducted an inspection, spoke to the Insureds, and documented the findings. State Farm provided a detailed coverage determination letter and estimate stating the results of State Farm’s investigation and evaluation of the claim. State Farm has opened coverage and prepared and estimate in the amount of $35,040.16. State Farm issued payment in the amount of $8,534.90 after application of the $21,994 deductible and the $4,511.26 in recoverable depreciation. State Farm reviewed all documentation and diligently investigated the claim and acted in good faith and with due regard for the Insureds’ interests, throughout the handling of the claim. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting the Insured’s allegations have been set forth in the Notice. Therefore, this allegation of a statutory violation is denied. Alleged Policy Violations The CRN cites to the initial coverage provision and the loss payment provision. However, the CRN fails to state specific facts supporting these alleged policy violations. The failure to provide specific facts of alleged violations is improper. See Julien, 311 So. 3d at 879 (rejecting a CRN as invalid that was overly broad ); Boone v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 48 Fla. L. Weekly D718a (Fla. 6th DCA April 6, 2023); Massey Constr. Grp., Inc. v. Heritage Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 30 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 768a (Fla. 20th Cir. Ct. Nov. 29, 2022) (including virtually the entire policy language is not specific). Nevertheless, State Farm denies any alleged violations of the provisions of the subject policy of insurance. At all times during the handling and investigation of the Insured’s claim, State Farm has followed each and every applicable policy provision and endorsement under the subject policy of insurance. The Proposed Cure is Invalid The Notice also does not properly allege what State Farm must do to cure these purported defects. State Farm did not commit any violations to cure. The Insured did not allege valid methods for curing the violations as alleged in a Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations. A civil remedy notice is “designed to be a cure period that will encourage payment of the underlying claim, and avoid unnecessary bad faith litigation.” Demase v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 239 So. 3d 218, 221 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (quoting Talat Enters., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1282 (Fla. 2000). The Florida Supreme Court has explained the requirement to provide a valid cure: 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. The law does not support such an expansive and illogical reading of Fla. Stat. Ann. § 624.155(2)(d). Talat Enters., 753 So. 2d at 1282 (citing Talat Enters. Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 952 F. Supp. 773, 777-78 (M.D. Fla. 1996)). The Notice states the following: To cure the defects outlined above, the Insurer must: (1) promptly tender all insurance proceeds due and owing to the Insured that would reasonably place the Insured back into the pre-loss condition, including the tender of accrued interest due and owing to the Insured; (2) promptly and timely communicate with the Insured’s representative(s) to complete the adjustment of the Insured’s loss by participating in good faith negotiations to reach an agreement relating to the parties’ dispute over coverage, scope and amount. This purported cure is precisely the type of expansive and illogical demand that the Florida Supreme Court rejected in Talat. The purported “cure” is vague and overly broad, failing to even provide an alleged amount necessary to “cure” the alleged violations. The “cure” also fails to contain any specific facts showing that State Farm or its agents acted in bad faith in the investigation, inspection, evaluation, or handling of this claim. The CRN fails to state any specific actions or omissions of bad faith claims handling. No purported actions are alleged that State Farm should have taken during the investigation to avoid bad faith claims handling. The “cure” fails to state any specific actions that State Farm could take to correct any alleged bad faith claims handling. Therefore, the purported “cure” and CRN are invalid. CONCLUSION State Farm has handled the Insureds’ claim with diligence and has, at all times, acted fairly in the adjustment of the claim and has treated the Insureds with honesty and due regard to their interests, and State Farm has done so in compliance with the policy of insurance and Florida law. Once posed, State Farm promptly responded to the claim by promptly sending out an inspector to inspect the Insured’s property, to include speaking to the Insureds. Thereafter, State Farm corresponded regularly with the Insureds and advised the Insureds of State Farm’s coverage determination. If the Insureds honestly believe that there was any type of violation, State Farm has requested and continues its requests that the Insureds cooperate and provide specific information with respect to each alleged violation, including the name of each individual involved, the date of each violation, a description of each violation, and copies of documentation referencing each violation. As it stands now, the Notice is insufficient for the purpose of allowing State Farm to fully respond and/or remedy the alleged violations, if any. State Farm has tried to fully and adequately respond to the Insured’s allegations alleged in the Notice filed with the Department. Should the Department have any questions or further inquiry with respect to this matter, please contact the undersigned. Sincerely, DUTTON LAW GROUP, P.A. /s/ Richard R. Phelps RICHARD R. PHELPS, ESQUIRE

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