Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     811771
Filing Accepted:  3/18/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
O'HARA   First Name   MARY
Street Address * 5110 62ND AVE S
City, State Zip * ST. PETERSBURG, FL 33715
Email Address * MARYOHARA1261@YAHOO.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   O'HARA   First Name   MARY
Policy # * SFLH0426325-07 Claim #* 67021
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* BOGGS First Name * AMY Initial
Street Address* 4554 CENTRAL AVE, SUITE L
City, State Zip* ST, PETERSBURG , FLORIDA 33711
Email Address * BOGGS-PLEADINGS@BOGGSLAWGROUP.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   SAFEPOINT INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 15341
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* N/A
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
Unfair Trade Practice
Claim Denial
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Other : Undervalued Claim
Other : Failure to Settle
* Statutory provision(s) which the insurer allegedly violated.
 
624.155(1)(b)(1) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests.
624.155(1)(b)(3) Except as to liability coverages, failing to promptly settle claims, when the obligation to settle a claim has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information.
* 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 – PROPERTY COVERAGES COVERAGE A – Dwelling We cover: 1. The dwelling on the “residence premises” shown in the Declarations, including structures attached to the dwelling
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

The Insured owns real property located at: 5110 62nd Ave S, St. Petersburg, FL 33715 (the “Property”). On or about September 26, 2024, the Property suffered extensive damage due to Hurricane Helene. The storm damaged both the interior and exterior of the Property. The Property was insured through Safepoint Insurance Company (“Safepoint”) under Policy No. SFH0426325-07 (the “Policy”) at the time of the loss. The Insured had ample coverage under the Policy to cover the loss. The Insured made a claim with Safepoint, who assigned claim No. 67021 and investigated the loss. Safepoint accepted coverage for the loss but adjusted the loss to be less than the Policy’s deductible. To date, Safepoint has tendered no benefits owed under the Policy for the Insured’s covered loss. The Insured retained licensed General Contractor Trey Payne, of The Vertex Companies, to investigate the loss and provide an estimate of the damages the Property sustained. Mr. Payne estimated the total cost to restore the Property back to its pre-loss condition at $37,882.56 ACV/ $41,840.38 RCV for the dwelling. After accounting for the Policy’s deductible, the total outstanding amount owed to the Insured at this time is $25,882.56 ACV. The disparity between the Insured’s $25,882.56 in damages and Safepoint’s adjusting of the claim to be less than the Policy’s deductible constitutes a bad faith effort by Safepoint to avoid payment for the Insured’s covered loss. Safepoint hopes that the Insured will settle her claim for far less than the full benefits she is owed under the Policy. In sum, Safepoint has wrongfully denied the Insured’s claim and has refused to tender benefits that the Insured is due for this covered loss under the Policy. In failing to make full payment of benefits due, Safepoint has also failed to investigate and settle the claim in good faith, partially denied the claim without conducting a proper investigation, and misrepresented pertinent facts pertaining to the Policy’s coverage. On information and belief, Safepoint has engaged in the following behaviors with such frequency that the conduct is a pattern and practice of Safepoint: delay, improper adjustment of claims, under-valuation of claims, failure to communicate with insureds, and wrongful denial of claims. Safepoint and the Insured are parties to a valid and binding contract of insurance. This contract of insurance requires Safepoint to provide benefits to the Insured in the case of a covered loss to the Property. The Insured suffered a covered loss under the Policy and has otherwise suffered damage that is not excluded under the Policy. All conditions precedent to obtaining coverage for the loss have been complied with, met, or waived. Safepoint has simply failed and refused to pay any benefits due for the covered loss the Property sustained. The Insured has been damaged by Safepoint’s breach of contract. This notice is given to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by Florida Statute, including all bad faith/extra-contractual and punitive damages, should Safepoint fail to cure the violations set forth in this notice within the given cure period. To cure the defects outlined in this civil remedy notice Safepoint must: (1) Provide full payment of benefits for the Insured’s claim; and (2) Tender interest for benefits due at the statutory rate dating back to reporting of the loss per Fla. Stat. §627.70131.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
mbakas@safepointins.com 05-15-2025 May 15, 2025 VIA EMAIL: BOGGS-PLEADINGS@BOGGSLAWGROUP.COM Amy Boggs, Esq. 4554 Central Avenue, Suite L St. Petersburg, FL 33711 RE: Insured: Mary O’Hara Claim Number: 67021 Policy: SFLH0426325-07 Date of Loss: 9/26/24 CRN Filing Number: 811771 Dear Sir/Madam: This is the formal response of SafePoint Insurance Company (“SafePoint”) to the purported Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (“Purported Notice”) that was filed on behalf of Mary O’Hara (“Complainant” / “Insured”). The Florida Department of Financial Services accepted the Purported Notice, in form only, on March 18, 2025. The Purported Notice was filed in connection with the Complainant’s insurance claim for property damage. The Purported Notice names SafePoint Insurance Company and alleges “Claim Delay,” “Unfair Trade Practice,” “Claim Denial,” “Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer,” “Undervalued Claim,” and “Failure to Settle” supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) Florida Statutes. The Purported Notice is a legal nullity for the reasons discussed below. ^ SafePoint specifically denies each and every allegation contained in the Purported Notice. Additionally, SafePoint denies that it violated these or any statutes, Florida law or policy provisions regarding the claim adjustment of this matter. ^1 SafePoint reserves all (and waives none) of its rights or defenses, including its right to assert additional deficiencies in the Purported Notice. Under Section 624.155(3), Florida Statutes, a claimant must file a notice with the Florida Department of Financial Services (“the Department”) at least 60 days before filing a Statutory “bad faith” lawsuit. This notice is commonly referred to as a “civil remedy notice” (“CRN”). Section 624.155(3), Florida Statutes sets out five pieces of information which must be included in a CRN: 1. The statutory provision, including the specific language of the statute, which the authorized insurer allegedly violated; 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation; 3. The name of any individual involved in the violation; 4. Reference to specific policy language that is relevant to the violation, if any. If the person bringing the civil action is a third party claimant, she or he shall not be required to reference the specific policy language if the authorized insurer has not provided a copy of the policy to the third party claimant pursuant to written request; and 5. A statement that the notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section. The statute also provides that, in addition to these five requirements, the CRN shall be “on a form provided by the [Department] and shall state with specificity . . . such other information as the department may require.” (emphasis added); The Florida Supreme Court has held that Section 624.155, Florida Statutes “must be strictly construed.” Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1283 (Fla. 2000). Strict construction is appropriate as “this statute is in derogation of the common law.” Id. When interpreting a statute in derogation of the common law, “[a] court will presume that such a statute was not intended to alter the common law other than as clearly and plainly specified in the statute.” Time Ins. Co., Inc. v. Burger, 712 So. 2d 389, 393 (Fla. 1998). Accordingly, such an interpretation would mean that statutory bad faith cases cannot proceed unless the claimant has specifically complied will all statutory requirements. After the promulgation of this statute, the Department created a CRN form: Form DFS-10-363. Form DFS-10-363 lays out 15 requirements: 1. Complainants Name; 2. Complainants Address; 3. Complainants E-mail address; 4. Complainant type (Insured or otherwise); 5. Insured’s Name; 6. Insurance Policy Number; 7. Insurance Claim Number; 8. Attorney’s Name; 9. Attorney’s Address; 10. Attorney’s E-mail Address; 11. Type of Insurer (authorized or otherwise); 12. Name of Insurer; 13. Address of Insurer; 14. Type of Insurance (Commercial Property & Casualty or otherwise); and 15. Reason for Notice. As these requirements are all information required by the Department, according to Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, they each must be stated with specificity. The Purported Notice fails to meet the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 624.155 on the following grounds. Deficiency #1 Section 624.155(3)(b)(3), Florida Statutes, requires that the CRN state with specificity the name of any individual involved in the violation. The Purported Notice fails to satisfy the requirement to identify the person or persons representing the insurer most responsible for or knowledgeable of the facts giving rise to the allegations. In order to comply with the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 624.155, the Complainant must name the individual(s) involved with specificity as it relates to the purported violation to allow SafePoint to properly investigate the allegations. Here, the Complainant does not identify the person or persons at SafePoint with the most knowledge of the facts regarding any alleged violation(s), rather it states: “N/A.” The Purported Notice does not have the requisite specificity as to whom the Complainant is asserting has knowledge as to each specific allegation contained in the Purported Notice. Accordingly, Complainants’ Purported Notice is insufficient as a matter of law. Thus, the CRN is invalid for noncompliance with Section 624.155(3)(b)(3), Florida Statutes. Deficiency #2 Section 624.155(3)(b)(4), Florida Statutes, requires the CRN to reference specific policy language that is relevant to the violation, if any. If the person bringing the civil action is a third- party claimant, she or he shall not be required to reference the specific policy language if the authorized insurer has not provided a copy of the policy to the third-party claimant pursuant to written request. The Complainant is the Insured and not a third-party claimant; therefore, the Purported Notice must include specific language from the subject policy that is relevant to the alleged violations. It does not. Rather, the Purported Notice lists a vague heading from an unknown insurance policy: “SECTION I - PROPERTY COVERAGES - COVERAGE A - Dwelling We cover: 1. The dwelling on the “residence premises" shown in the Declarations, including structures attached to the dwelling.” Thus, the Purported Notice is invalid for noncompliance with Section 624.155(3)(b)(4), Florida Statutes. This deficiency applies to all allegations in the Purported Notice, including but not limited to “Claim Delay,” “Unfair Trade Practice,” “Claim Denial,” “Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer,” “Undervalued Claim,” and “Failure to Settle” supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) Florida Statutes. On March 3, 2021, the Fourth District Court of Appeal issued a relevant opinion in Junior Julien v. United Property and Casualty Insurance Company, No. 4D19-2763. In Julien, the insured appealed the circuit court’s dismissal of his lawsuit against his insurer, finding that the insured’s Civil Remedy Notice (“CRN”) failed to satisfy the statutory requirement that an insured “state with specificity” the policy language and the statutory provisions at issue. In his CRN, the insured cited numerous statutory provisions and listed nearly every provision in the insurance policy. On appeal, the Fourth District affirmed the dismissal and agreed with the circuit court that the CRN failed to specify the statutory and policy provisions at issue. Like the CRN in Julien, the Purported Notice fails to “state with specificity” the policy language at issue. Deficiency # 3 Section 624.155(3)(b)(2), Florida Statutes, requires that the CRN state with specificity the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation. The Purported Notice does not supply specific facts or circumstances that explain the allegations. Rather, the Purported Notice asserts general allegations consisting of conclusory and inaccurate statements rather than specific allegations of fact regarding any alleged misconduct or statutory violations and fails to explain how the purported facts constitute violations of Florida law. For example, the Purported Notice states, “In sum, Safepoint has wrongfully denied the Insured’s claim and has refused to tender benefits that the Insured is due for this covered loss under the Policy.” However, these statements are conclusory, inaccurate and without a factual basis. This is a claim for roof and interior damage that was reported on September 27, 2024, one (1) day after the alleged date of loss, September 26, 2024. On September 30, 2024, SafePoint timely inspected the subject property and documented damage to the pool area and boat dock caused by storm surge and damage to the tile roof and a broken garage window. The Policy expressly excludes coverage for damages resulting from floods even when caused by hurricane wind or rain. See, HO 03 10 00 HOMEOWNERS 3 – SPECIAL FORM policy amended by the SIC HO – 3 01 23 endorsement, which states in part: “SECTION I – EXCLUSIONS 1. We do not insure for loss caused directly or indirectly by any of the following. Such loss is excluded regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence to the loss. … c. Water Damage, meaning: (1) Flood, surface water, waves, including tidal wave and tsunami, tides, tidal water, storm surge, overflow of any body of water, or spray from any of these, all whether or not driven by wind, including storm surge;” Therefore, pursuant to the Policy, SafePoint denied coverage for the flood-related damage but opened coverage for the above previously noted damages. Contrary to the assertion in the Purported Notice, that “SafePoint has wrongfully denied the Insured’s claim and has refused to tender benefits that the Insured is due for this covered loss under the Policy” on November 1, 2024, SafePoint timely notified the Insured and initiated coverage for the covered portion of the loss based on its investigation, repair estimate, and Policy. An estimate of $1,159.47 was prepared under Coverage A – Dwelling for the covered portion of the loss; however, this amount fell below the Insured’s hurricane deductible of $12,000, so no payment was issued in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Policy. Finally, the Purported Notice makes boilerplate recitations of statutes and conclusory statement without the requisite specificity. Specificity is of particular importance for this Notice as Complainant generally alleges that SafePoint “[m]isrepresent[ed] pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to the coverages at issue.” However, the Purported Notice does not set forth any facts regarding any misrepresentations made by SafePoint and does not identify the person or persons who made such misrepresentations. It is evident that the statement of facts falls short of the specificity required by Fla. Stat. §624.155. The above noted deficiencies apply to all allegations in the Purported Notice, including but not limited to to “Claim Delay,” “Unfair Trade Practice,” “Claim Denial,” “Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer,” “Undervalued Claim,” and “Failure to Settle” supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) Florida Statutes. STATUTORY ALLEGATIONS 624.155(1)(b)(1): Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all 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. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced 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. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b): Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c): Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d): Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. The allegations set forth in the Purported Notice are denied as they are mere conclusory allegations unsupported by facts, devoid of logic and intended solely to tarnish SafePoint’s name and reputation. SafePoint has at all times, acted fairly, honestly and in good faith in its dealings with the Complainant. While an insurance carrier is required to settle claims that should be settled, it is not required to settle claims that are legitimately contested. SafePoint unequivocally denies each and every allegation asserted in the Purported Notice. At no time has SafePoint breached any duty to the Complainant. AN INSURER IS NOT REQUIRED TO PAY WHATEVER AMOUNT THE INSURED DEMANDS. SafePoint retained a field adjuster and conducted an inspection of the subject property to investigate the Insured’s claim. Thereafter, Safepoint made a coverage decision pursuant to all applicable Policy language and statutes. Please be advised, by this letter, SafePoint neither waives, nor is estopped, from asserting any and all rights it may have in law, or, under the terms of the Policy. In fact, SafePoint hereby again, expressly, and specifically, reserves all of its rights, without exception or limitation. If you have any questions or concerns with this response, or, regarding any other matter, please contact me in writing. Sincerely, /s/ Ari A. Zeltzer Ari A. Zeltzer, Esq. Staff Counsel SafePoint Insurance Exchange 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