Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     812094
Filing Accepted:  3/20/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
BERARDI   First Name   EUGENE
Street Address * 2708 BAY DRIVE
City, State Zip * BRADENTON, FL 34207-56
Email Address * BIK@TRAILWAYSNY.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   BERARDI   First Name   EUGENE AND LILLIAN
Policy # * 1747376413 Claim #* 01000128156
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
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):* OLIVIA RODGERS, ADJUSTOR
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
Claim Delay
* 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.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

B. Coverage B – Other Structures 1. We cover other structures on the "residence premises" set apart from the dwelling by clear space. This includes structures connected to the dwelling by only a fence, utility line, or similar connection. 2. We do not cover: a. Land, including land on which the other structures are located; b. Other structures rented or held for rental to any person not a tenant of the dwelling, unless used solely as a private garage; c. Other structures from which any "business" is conducted; or d. Other structures used to store "business" property. However, we do cover a structure that contains "business" property solely owned by an "insured" or a tenant of the dwelling, provided that "business" property does not include gaseous or liquid fuel, other than fuel in a permanently installed fuel tank of a vehicle or craft parked or stored in the structure. 3. The limit of liability for this coverage will not be more than 10% of the limit of liability that applies to Coverage A. Use of this coverage does not reduce the Coverage A limit of liability 11. "Residence premises" means: a. The one-family dwelling where you reside; b. The two-, three- or four-family dwelling where you reside in at least one of the family units; or c. That part of any other building where you reside; and which is shown as the "residence premises" in the Declarations. "Residence premises" also includes other structures and grounds at that location. E. Additional Coverages 1. Debris Removal a. We will pay your reasonable expense for the removal of: (1) Debris of covered property if a Peril Insured Against that applies to the damaged property causes the loss; or (2) Ash, dust or particles from a volcanic eruption that has caused direct loss to a building or property contained in a building. This expense is included in the limit of liability that applies to the damaged property. If the amount to be paid for the actual damage to the property plus the debris removal expense is more than the limit of liability for the damaged property, an additional 5% of that limit is available for such expense. SECTION I – PERILS INSURED AGAINST A. Coverage A – Dwelling And Coverage B – Other Structures 1. We insure against direct physical loss to property described in Coverages A and B. B. COVERAGE B – Other Structures is deleted and replaced by the following: 1. We cover other structures on the “residence premises” set apart from the dwelling by clear space. This includes structures connected to the dwelling by only a fence, utility line, or similar connection. This coverage does not apply to in-ground swimming pools. This coverage does not apply to land, including land on which the other structures are located. 2. We do not cover other structures: a. Used in whole or in part for “business”; or b. Rented or held for rental to any person not a tenant of the dwelling, unless used solely as a private garage. 3. The limit of liability for this coverage will not be more than the limit of liability shown in the Declarations for Coverage B. Use of this coverage does not reduce the Coverage A limit of liability. SECTION I – PERILS INSURED AGAINST A. COVERAGE A – DWELLING and COVERAGE B – OTHER STRUCTURES Paragraph 2.c.(5) is deleted and replaced by the following: NCPT HO 07 23 Page 4 of 25 (5) Repeated seepage or leakage of water or the presence or condensation of humidity, moisture, or vapor, that occurs or develops over a period of 14 or more days, whether hidden or not. The Exception to c.(6) second paragraph is deleted and replaced by the following: Exception to c.(6) The cost that we will pay for the tear out and repair above is only that cost necessary to access and repair only that specific point of that system or appliance that caused the covered loss, whether the system or appliance, or any part or portion of the system or appliance, is repairable or not. However, such tear out and repair coverage only applies to other structures if the water or steam causes actual damage to a covered building on the “residence premises.” J. Loss Payment is deleted and replaced by the following: J. 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 receive payment and we have not elected our option to repair. 1. Loss will be payable upon the earlier of the following: a. 20 days after we receive your proof of loss in compliance with SECTION I – CONDITIONS, C. Duties After Loss, paragraph 9, and reach written agreement with you; or b. 60 days after we receive your proof of loss in compliance with SECTION I – CONDITIONS, C. Duties After Loss, paragraph 9; and (1) There is an entry of a final judgment; or (2) There is a filing of an appraisal award or a mediation settlement with us. c. If payment is not denied, within 60 days after we receive notice of an initial, reopened or supplemental claim. However, this provision c. does not apply if factors beyond our control reasonably prevent such payment. The Florida Office of Insurance Regulation may extend the 60 day period up to 30 additional days if a state emergency, cyberattack, or computer systems failure prevents the insurer from meeting the 60 day time frame. Failure to comply with this provision c. does not form the sole basis of a private cause of action against us. 2. If payment is denied in part, we will pay the undisputed amounts within the same time stated unless we have exercised our option under SECTION I – CONDITIONS, I.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

I have a home in Sarasota Florida at 2708 Bay Drive, Bradenton, Fl 34207. My insurance company, Frontline insurance, refuses to pay a significant portion of a claim for damage caused by Hurricane Milton a claim that is clearly covered under the terms of my policy. The Baseless Denial of My Claim Hurricane Milton made landfall after Hurricane Helene (September 26, 2024). There was damage to my dock, the lift, the canopy and other incidental damage from both hurricanes. At issue is an estimated $36,649 for repairs to damage to the dock that resulted from Milton (October 9, 2024). Two damage estimates from an experienced, local, vendor distinguish between the damage caused by Helene and Milton. One estimate is for damage to the dock following Helene and prior to Milton. The second estimate is from the same vendor for additional damage to the dock following Milton. In the face of the evidence establishing that the damage at issue was caused by Milton, the insurance company is falsely attributing the additional damage to a storm surge during Milton. It is undisputed that the damage at issue could only have been caused by wind or storm surge. My policy has coverage for secondary structures and hurricane damage. The insurance company is hiding behind “storm surge” because storm surge damage is not covered by my policy, whereas wind damage is covered. The insurance company, however, is ignoring ample evidence demonstrating that there was no surge from Milton. Some of that evidence, readily available online from NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), shows that, after Milton, my canopy is out in the water and there is no debris in the yard. Had the damage actually been caused by a storm surge and not wind, the water would have come towards the land (my yard), the canopy would have been moved in the direction of the land and there would have been debris in the yard. There is also evidence showing that the high-water mark from Milton cannot support the theory that the additional estimated $36,649 of damage to the dock was caused by a surge. The insurance company not only persists in denying the claim, but persists in refusing to provide to me copies of the photos it appraiser(s) took following Helene and Milton. Being Ignored By The Insurance Company Frontline insurance received my notice of an initial claim on October 11, 2024. It is now March 20, 2025, more than five months (160 days) since filing my claim with Frontline. During the 160 days since filing my claim, I have made numerous calls to my broker, and my broker (Tina Gonzalez of Wallace Welch & Willingham) and a colleague broker from a sister agency (Ernest Schwartz from IMA) and I have made numerous calls to Frontline to ascertain the status of my claim and when I will be paid in full for the damage caused by Hurricane Milton. All of which have gone unanswered. Conclusion The insurance company’s persistent denial of my claim in the face of irrefutable evidence and its persistently ignoring my attempts to communicate and resolve the claim leaves me no recourse but to file suit. Accordingly, I am filing the required statutory notice prior to filing suit against the insurance company.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
jsuarez@chartwelllaw.com 05-16-2025 SHAWN E. DEVENDORF, ESQUIRE Direct Dial: (786) 349-3612 sdevendorf@chartwelllaw.com Reply To: Miami Office 100 SE 2nd Street, Suite 2150 Miami, FL 33131-5322 Phone: (305) 372-9044 Facsimile: (305) 372-5044 May 16, 2025 VIA E-MAIL TO: bik@trailwaysny.com Eugene Berardi and VIA E-FILING: Dept. of Fianancial Services Civil Remedy Notice Website Florida Dept. Of Financial Services Consumer Assistance/Civil Remedy Section Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0322 RE: Eugene Berardi / First Protective Insurance Company Date of Loss : October 9, 2024 Claim No. : 01000128156 CRN Filing No. : 812094 Policy No. : 1747376413 Address : 2708 Bay Drive, Bradenton, FL 34207 Our File No. : 890.0117021 To Whom It May Concern: This office has been retained by First Protective Insurance Company (hereinafter “First Protective”) in connection with the above referenced claim. Please accept the following as First Protective’s Response to the Civil Remedy Notice (“CRN” or “Notice”) filed on March 20, 2025, by or on behalf of Eugene Berardi (“Insured”). First Protective notes that the subject Notice was filed against “Frontline Insurance Unlimited Company.” Frontline Insurance Unlimited Company did not issue a homeowners insurance policy to the Insured and at no time was there an insurer-insured relationship between them. Nor was the subject claim ever submitted to Frontline Insurance Unlimited Company by or on behalf of the Insured. Thus, the Notice was not properly directed at the correct insurance carrier. However, in an abundance of caution, and without waiving any objections, rights, or defenses, First Protective files the instant response to address the allegations that could potentially have been made against it. By virtue of this response, First Protective does not agree that the Notice is proper notice as required by section 624.155, Fla. Stat., and in fact, specifically posits that this Notice is void and should be rejected. First Protective specifically denies each and every allegation contained in the Notice and asserts that the Notice fails to comply with the specificity requirements mandated by Florida Statute § 624.155. A civil remedy notice must set forth specific statutory provisions the insurer allegedly violated, the facts giving rise to the violation, the relevant policy language, and a statement that the notice is given to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by the statute. See Landers v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 234 So. 3d 856, 858 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). Similarly, 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). It is First Protective’s position that the CRN filed by the Insured is deficient pursuant to section 624.155(3)(b), Fla. Stat., which states: The [civil remedy] notice shall be on a form provided by the department and shall state with specificity the following information, and such other information as the department may require: 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. 5. A statement that the notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section. (emphasis added.) First Protective objects to the filing of the Notice because the Insured failed to comply with section 624.155(3)(b)(2), Fla. Stat., which requires that the Notice include the facts and circumstances giving rise to each violation. While the Notice contains some statements apparently relating to the loss, there are no facts alleged that support or provide notice to the carrier of the specific violations complained of. For instance, while the Notice alleges that First Protective denied the claim, when in reality, First Protective extended coverage for portions of the claim. The Notice also fails to address that the Insured was requested to provide a sworn proof of loss within 30 days after First Protective’s request on October 23, 2024. However, the Insured failed to provide a timely sworn proof of loss during the adjustment of the claim, as the proof of loss was submitted on May 8, 2025, which is well past the 30-day deadline. This further demonstrates the generic nature of the Insured’s Notice and how it fails to provide specificity as to the facts and circumstances of the subject claim. Moreover, the Notice does not allege any specific cure, as it only states that the Notice is being filed prior to filing suit and mentions that there is an estimated $36,649.00 at issue. In fact, while the Insured did submit estimates regarding the claim damages, none of the estimates have a total amount of $36,649.00. Furthermore, the vague nature of this Notice is further evidenced by the fact that it alleges the carrier as “Frontline Insurance Unlimited Company.” Frontline Insurance Unlimited Company did not issue a homeowners insurance policy to the Insured and at no time was there an insurer-insured relationship between them. Nor was a claim ever submitted to Frontline Insurance Unlimited Company by or on behalf of the Insured. As such, the Notice is vague and insufficient to put First Protective on notice as to what it allegedly did wrong, as it does not address the correct insurance carrier, and fails to address the facts of the claim. Failure to provide such specificity is direct and clear noncompliance with the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 624.155 and renders the Notice deficient on its face as to form and substance. Indeed, the lack of factual specificity leaves uncertainty as to how to cure the alleged bad faith conduct. See Valenti v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., No. 8:04-cv-1615-T-30TGW, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36880, at *7 (M.D. Fla. June 6, 2006) (The purpose of the civil remedy notice is to provide insurers one last opportunity to settle a claim with the insured to avoid unnecessary litigation). The Insured also failed to comply with section 624.155(3)(b)(4), Fla. Stat., which requires references to specific policy language. Notably, while the Notice appears to list specific policy provisions, it fails to address the policy language the Insured is relying upon in support of the purported violations. Therefore, the Insured’s failure to list any policy language relevant to the alleged violations fails to comply with section 624.155(3)(b)(4), Fla. Stat. See Julien v. United Prop. & Cas, Ins. Co., 2020 Fla. App, LEXIS 13520 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (citing fox v. Starr Indemn. & Liab. Co., No, 8:16-CV-3254-T-23MAP-2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65123, 2017 WL 1541294, at *2 (M.D. Fla, April 28, 2017)) (an insurer’s listing of whole sections of the insurance policy in a civil remedy notice “appear[ed] to lack specificity”). As such, First Protective was not provided with notice of the specific policy language that it allegedly failed to comply with. The Notice 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. Additionally, as described in detail above, the facts alleged in the Notice are overbroad and conclusory and do not contain any specific factual support for the alleged violations. First Protective, therefore, is unable to ascertain the reasons for the alleged statutory violations from the Notice rendering the Notice deficient. For these reasons, the Notice should be denied and rejected. With regard to the facts of the claim, subject loss was reported on October 23, 2024, with an alleged date of loss of October 9, 2024. In order to adjust and investigate the claim, First Protective requested documentation and information, including a sworn proof of loss and documentation supporting the Insured’s claim for damages. First Protective also had the property inspected by a field adjuster on November 5, 2024. During the inspection, it was discovered that the Insured was in the process of replacing the dock, meaning First Protective was not provided an opportunity to inspect same prior to said repairs. Based on its investigation and adjustment, First Protective initially issued a coverage letter on November 15, 2024 which advised that the damages were below the applicable policy deductible of $40,837.00. Thereafter, First Protective issued undisputed payments to the Insured for the covered damages, as outlined in its correspondence dated January 22, 2025, and also denied coverage for storm surge pursuant to the terms and conditions of the policy. As previously mentioned above, the Insured was requested to provide a sworn proof of loss within 30 days from the date First Protective requested same (October 23, 2024); however, the Insured failed to provide a timely proof of loss during the adjustment of the claim. Therefore, First Protective investigated the claim based on all of the information available to it despite the Insured’s failures to comply with the policy. Any delays in the adjustment of the claim were caused by the Insured’s own lack of cooperation and failure to comply with the terms of the policy. The Insured alleges various reasons why this Notice was filed and also alleges multiple statutory violations; however, no specific facts or circumstances are provided to support these allegations. As previously stated, the Notice is simply a recitation of general, stock, and unsupported allegations of bad faith conduct which are not specifically alleged or described. First Protective specifically denies that it has violated any of these sections and denies all other allegations of bad faith or improper claims handling in this matter. However, notwithstanding these allegations, the Insured fails to provide factual support for these alleged violations within the body of the Notice. Nonetheless, First Protective denies the following allegations made by the Insured in the Notice: Claim Denial: First Protective denies any allegation pertaining to the denial of the subject claim. The Insured fails to submit any facts or circumstances in support of this alleged violation. As demonstrated in the factual summary set forth above, First Protective promptly investigated the loss, found coverage for the loss, issued undisputed payments for the covered damages, and properly sent coverage determination letters to the Insured in compliance with its duties and obligations under the subject policy of insurance. Claim Delay: First Protective denies any delay on its part in the claim handling and processing of the loss, as is evident from the facts outlined above. First Protective promptly acknowledged the Insured’s claim and timely initiated its investigation of the loss. First Protective then immediately sent coverage determination letters to the Insured. At all times throughout the handling and adjustment of this claim, First Protective acted in accordance with its duties and obligations pursuant to the policy of insurance and acted as promptly as possible under the circumstances to advise the Insured of the determinations of coverage for the alleged loss. Any delays in the adjustment of the claim were caused by the Insured’s own lack of cooperation and failure to comply with the terms of the policy. Fla. Stat. §624.155(1)(b)(1): Denied. First Protective has not failed to attempt to settle this claim in good faith and has always acted fairly and honestly towards the Insured. As shown in the factual summary above, the conduct of First Protective following its receipt of the first notice of the loss has been compliant with all aspects of Florida law. First Protective promptly investigated the claim, made coverage determinations based on the applicable policy language and Florida law, and promptly advised the Insured of the determination. First Protective asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligations set forth in the subject insurance policy. Fla. Stat. §624.155(1)(b)(3): Denied. First Protective has not failed to promptly settle this claim. As supported by the above claim facts, First Protective asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. First Protective promptly investigated the claim, made coverage determinations based on the applicable policy language and Florida law, and promptly advised the Insured of the determination. The Insured has submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. First Protective has adjusted the loss and damages claimed by the Insured to the extent possible despite the Insured’s non-compliance with the policy’s post-loss duties, including his failure to cooperate with First Protective’s investigation. Furthermore, First Protective has acted reasonably in adjusting the loss based on the information available to it and in accordance with the terms of the subject policy. First Protective conducted a reasonable and diligent investigation to assess the damages in this loss in light of the Insured’s failure to comply with her post-loss duties and promptly communicated with the Insured throughout the investigation—all within the mandates of Florida law. Throughout the handling of the Insured’s insurance claim, First Protective has acted in good faith towards the interests of its Insured. First Protective investigated the loss in accordance with the policy provisions and standard claims handling practices. First Protective, therefore, denies any allegations to the contrary. We trust that the foregoing is sufficient to advise of First Protective’s position with regard to the Civil Remedy Notice filed by the Insured. If any additional information is required, please feel free to contact the undersigned regarding same. Very truly yours, CHARTWELL LAW By: Shawn Devendorf Shawn Devendorf
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