Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     812322
Filing Accepted:  3/21/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
MODLIN   First Name   JASON AND LOUANN
Street Address * C/O CARRINGTON JONES, ESQ 3333 S. ORANGE AVE, SUITE 104
City, State Zip * ORLANDO, FL 32806
Email Address * CARRINGTON@MYLAWYERCAN.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   MODLIN   First Name   JASON AND LOUANN
Policy # * 7199775520 Claim #* 01-000-124064
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* JONES First Name * CARRINGTON Initial E
Street Address* 3333 S. ORANGE AVE, SUITE 104
City, State Zip* ORLANDO , FL 32806
Email Address * CARRINGTON@MYLAWYERCAN.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   FIRST PROTECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10897
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* MCWELL HOGUE
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Unfair Trade Practice
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.
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)(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.

First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Homeowners Insurance policy 7199775520 provides coverage to Jason and Louann Modlin for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage A. As such, this is an “all perils” policy and all such losses described above are covered unless they are specifically excluded.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

On or about October 9, 2024, Jason and Louann Modlin (“Insureds”) suffered significant Hurricane Milton damage to their home located at 5418 120th Avenue East, Parrish, FL 34219. Prior to the loss, First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Homeowners Insurance policy 7199775520 provides coverage to Jason and Louann Modlin for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage A. As such, this is an “all perils” policy and all such losses described above are covered unless they are specifically excluded. First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Homeowners Insurance issued a homeowner’s insurance policy (policy no. 7199775520) for the Insureds’ home. The policy was in effect on the date of loss and affords coverage for Hurricane Milton damage. After providing notice of the loss, the insureds cooperated with First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Homeowners Insurance policy 7199775520 provides coverage to Jason and Louann Modlin for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage A and under the policy. As such, this is an “all perils” policy and all such losses described above are covered unless they are specifically excluded. The Insured(s) cooperated with the investigation of the claim and allowed First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Homeowners Insurance to inspect the damages on 10/24/2024. Despite First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Homeowners Insurance acknowledging a significant amount of covered damage, First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Homeowners Insurance refused to tender full payment to bring the insureds to pre-loss condition. This is a pattern and practice of First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Homeowners Insurance, finding that an Insureds damages fell below their deductible and or significant under valuing damages. The insureds home have sustained significant damage which far exceeds their deductible. Specifically the insureds known damage total $84,514.56. Fla. Stat. § 624.155. Fla. Stat. 624.155 provides a cause of action for bad faith in first-party claims. Fridman v. Safeco Ins. Co., 185 So. 3d 1214, 1220 (Fla. 2016). These first-party claims are treated the same as third-party claims. Id. at 1221. The question of whether an insurer acted in bad faith is determined by the “totality of the circumstances” standard. Berges v. Infinity Ins. Co., 896 So. 2d 665, 680 (Fla. 2004). This inquiry focuses on the actions of the insurer. Id. at 677. The insurer has a duty to use the degree of care and diligence as a person of ordinary care. Bos. Old Colony Ins. Co. v. Gutierrez, 386 So. 2d 783, 785 (Fla. 1980). The insurer must investigate the facts, give fair consideration to all settlement offers, and settle when a reasonable prudent person would. Id. Additionally, an insurer must not act solely in their own interest in settlement. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. LaForet, 658 So.2d 55, 58 (Fla. 1995). Furthermore, the insurer has the burden to show that there was no realistic possibility of settlement. Powell v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 584 So. 2d 12, 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). 624.155(1)(b) claims: [624.155(1)(b)(1)]: Insurer, First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Homeowners Insurance, acted in bad faith under Fla. Stat. 624.155(1)(b)(1) in their dealings with the Insureds by failing to attempt to settle the Insureds’ claims when it could and should have done so had it acted fairly and honestly toward the insured. As such, the insurer must promptly and immediately settle the claim. 624.155(1)(a)(1) claims: Fla. Stat. § 624.155(1)(a)(1) grants a cause of action against an insurer for unfair insurance trade practices under Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i). Contrary to the language of the statute, a remedy exists even “without proof that the insurer committed unfair or deceptive acts with such frequency as to constitute a general business practice.” Dadeland Depot, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 945 So. 2d 1216, 1232 (Fla. 2006). Here, First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Homeowners Insurance’s actions constituted bad faith under 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a). [626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a)]: Pursuant to Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), an insurer must adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. Plaintiff may bring a civil action for damages caused by the failure to adopt such standards. Fla. Stat. § 624.155(1)(a)(1). Here, the facts of this loss investigation indicate that Insurer does not have adequate standards for the proper investigation of claims. Here, Insurer has failed to assign competent and unbiased claims personnel. First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Homeowners Insurance has not acted honestly or fairly towards its Insureds. First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Homeowners Insurance policy 7199775520 provides coverage to Jason and Louann Modlin for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in under coverage A and the policy in its entirety. As such, this is an “all perils” policy and all such losses described above are covered unless they are specifically excluded. First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Homeowners Insurance and its adjusters misrepresented the scope and cause of damages to the residence and misapplied exclusions in the policy, namely wear and tear, and “long term” damage, in order to deny or underpay coverage for the majority of the Insureds claim in order to ensure its valuation of the claim would be significantly less than the cost of repair. As is the case here, it has become a general business practice of First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Homeowners Insurance 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. First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Homeowners Insurance regularly undervalues claims in order to avoid issuing payment on losses that it knows are covered under the policy. First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Homeowners Insurance also routinely refuses to pay claims in full when it has the ability to do so, waits to see if its insureds contest their coverage determination, as was necessary here, and, only then, will it capriciously invoke appraisal. First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Homeowners Insurance knows that by opening up a small amount of coverage, it can maintain its ability to demand appraisal later on and deprive its Insured access to the courts. Its insureds are then forced to pay the cost of their own appraiser and potentially an umpire, which can total several thousands of dollars, before it is ever willing to perform repairs or issue benefits that were already owed under the policy. First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Homeowners Insurance has developed this deliberate strategy in order to deter its Insureds from challenging its coverage determinations and hinder their ability to seek additional payment for monies owed under the policy. First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Homeowners Insurance’s practice of not adjusting losses in good faith in accordance with section 627.70131, Florida Statues, unnecessarily delays resolution of its claims and leaves claimants like the Insureds with no choice but to incur further time and expense just to be fully indemnified pursuant to the terms of their contract with First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Homeowners Insurance. First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Homeowners Insurance has completely abdicated its duty to adjust and has put the onus on its Insureds to spend thousands of dollars in appraisal before First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Homeowners Insurance is willing to issue benefits or make repairs that it knows are owed pursuant to the policy. First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Homeowners Insurance’s pattern and practice of underrepresenting the actual cost and cause of damages, then demanding appraisal if challenged, is evidence that it does not act fairly or honestly towards the Insured during its adjustment process and that it has failed to implement proper standards for the investigation and handling of its claims. First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Homeowners Insurance did not apply appropriate standards in order to properly investigate claims such as the Loss at the Home, which ultimately led to its unfair and dishonest adjustment of the Loss. First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Homeowners Insurance has implemented a strategy and approach to the Loss that is unfair and has not attempted to settle the Loss that that the Insured has suffered and continues to suffer. First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Homeowners Insurance can cure its bad faith conduct by: 1) accepting the insured’s claim as compensable, and agreeing to pay the claim in accordance with its loss settlement provision prior to the expiration of the cure period, 2) reaching an amicable settlement of the pending claim prior to the expiration of the cure period, or 3) paying the amount of the estimate for damages ($84,514.56) submitted by the insured to First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Homeowners Insurance less the insured’s deductible. By doing any of these three things, the insurer will cure its bad faith in this case and extinguish any and all of its liability for all bad faith damages which could be sought pursuant to this Civil Remedy Notice.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
kferry@camboferry.com 05-08-2025 May 8, 2025 Via E-Mail & Uploaded to DFS Jason and Louann Modlin C/O Carrington Jones, Esq. 3333 S. Orange Ave, Suite 104 Orlando, FL 32806 carrington@mylawyercan.com RE: Claim Number: 01000124064 Claimant(s): Modlin, Louann Modlin, Jason Policy Number: 7199775520 Loss Location: 5418 120th Ave E, Parrish, FL 34219 DFS Filing No: 812322 Dear Mr. Jones: As you know, my firm represents First Protective Insurance Company (“Frontline”) with respect to the above-referenced matter. This correspondence constitutes Frontline’s response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation (“CRN”) with filing number 812322 you filed on behalf of Jason and Louann Modlin. The Notice is void because it is legally invalid. Beyond that, the allegations in the Notice have no merit. I. The Civil Remedy Notice is legally invalid. The filing of a valid Civil Remedy Notice is a condition precedent to an action brought pursuant to section 624.155, Florida Statutes. Talat Enter., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1283 (Fla. 2000). Because the statute is in derogation of the common law, it must be strictly construed. Id. “[A]ny statute in derogation of the common law requires strict compliance with its provisions by one seeking to avail himself of its benefits.” Florida Steel Corp. v. Adaptable Devs., Inc., 503 So. 2d 1232, 1234 (Fla. 1986). Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, requires a civil remedy notice to provide specific information to put the insurer on notice of the alleged violation. Additionally, a civil remedy notice must be “specific enough to provide insurers notice of the wrongdoing so the insurer can cure the same within sixty days.” Valenti v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 8:04CV1615T-30TGW, 2006 WL 1627276, at *2 (M.D. Fla. 2006). Here, the Notice is invalid because it does not contain all of the information required by section 624.155. Demase v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 7760 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022). Also, it is invalid because it lacks sufficient specificity to provide notice to Frontline of the alleged wrongdoing, as discussed below. First, the CRN fails to reference the specific policy language relevant to the alleged violation as required by Fla. Stat. §624.155(3)(b)4. Pursuant to Fla. Stat. §624.155(3)(b)4, the CRN must cite the specific policy language that is relevant to the alleged violations. Here, the CRN does not cite to any policy language whatsoever. Therefore, the CRN does not reference the specific policy language alleged to have been violated. Such an omission means that the CRN fails to meet the standard of specificity that is statutorily required. In turn, this prevents Frontline from addressing any issues regarding the policy the Complainant alleges to have been violated, which is the underlying purpose of Fla. Stat. §624.155(3)(b)4. The CRN, therefore, is statutorily deficient because it does not comply with the requirements set forth in Fla. Stat. §624.155(3)(b)4. Demase v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 7760 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022). Second, the CRN does not provide any specific supporting facts and merely makes conclusory statements. For example, the CRN alleges that Frontline “did not apply appropriate standards in order to properly investigate claims such as the Loss at the Home, which ultimately led to its unfair and dishonest adjustment of the loss” without any support for such an assertion. No specific facts identifying what, if anything, Frontline did or failed to do with regard to the claim were provided. Instead, the allegations are mere self-serving and conclusory statements without substance or relation to any alleged violation. This undermines the purpose of the CRN requirement preventing Frontline from investigating and resolving any of the alleged violations. The failure to provide any specific supporting facts for the allegations renders the CRN invalid. Demase v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 7760 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022). Moreover, the CRN does not list the Complainant’s e-mail address instead it provides the email of Carrington Jones. See Pin-Pon Corp., 500 F. Supp. 3d 1336 (S.D. Fla. 2020); Demase v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 7760 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022). Further, the boilerplate CRN lacks sufficient specificity to provide notice of the alleged bad-faith conduct. The CRN lists nine different statutes which Frontline allegedly violated. However, the CRN fails to provide any relevant facts supporting the alleged violations or relating these alleged violations to the nine cited statutes. Only conclusory statements are included within the Notice. Because the Civil Remedy Notice fails to identify any specific statutes or any facts to support why the Insureds believe Frontline violated the statutes, Frontline is unable to properly respond and the Notice is invalid and should be rejected and returned. Frontline will also note that the Notice fails to acknowledge that Frontline opened coverage and issued payment for a full roof replacement. It also fails to acknowledge that other damages were denied consistent with the terms and conditions of the Policy and pursuant to Frontline’s thorough investigation of the claim, along with clear evidence that some of the denied damages were identical to those asserted in a prior claim. Lastly, the Notice fails to mention multiple calls to the filing attorney’s office that went unanswered prior to finalization of Frontline’s coverage determination. Because the CRN fails to comply with the information requirements promulgated by the Department of Financial Services, it is legally invalid. See Pin-Pon Corp. v. Landmark Ins. Co., 500 F. Supp. 3d 1336 (S.D. Fla. 2020); Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 4D19-2763 (September 23, 2020); Demase v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 7760 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022). Again, in serving this response, Frontline reserves all rights under Florida law to be served with a properly completed and statutorily compliant CRN. As the CRN fails to strictly comply with the requirements of section 624.155, Florida Statutes, it is legally insufficient and should be rejected. II. The Civil Remedy Notice Lacks Merit The Notice also lacks merit. The subject claim was reported on or about October 12, 2024 with a reported date of loss of October 9, 2024, for alleged damage related to Hurricane Milton at the subject property located at 5418 120th Avenue East, Parrish, FL 34219. The same day Frontline sent the insureds correspondence acknowledging their claim and advising them of their rights and obligations under the Policy. On October 18, 2024, Frontline’s assigned adjuster attempted to call the insureds to discuss the claim. They did not answer and the adjuster left a detailed voicemail providing contact information and requesting a call back to discuss the claim and next steps. On October 20, 2024, Frontline’s adjuster had a telephone call with Mr. Modlin where they discussed the property damage and claim process. Mr. Modlin stated that the insureds had a prior claim following Hurricane Debby, where water leaked to their bedroom ceiling. He stated that there was water staining on that same ceiling following Hurricane Milton. Mr. Modlin further stated that a tarp had been placed on their roof and that there was no other exterior damage apart from the roof. A field adjuster inspection was coordinated. On October 24, 2024, an independent field adjuster inspected the property on behalf of Frontline. Mr. Modlin was present for the inspection. The field adjuster observed damage to the roof. He did not observe any other exterior damage. The only interior damage observed by the field adjuster was a water stain on the ceiling of the master bedroom. As reported by the insured and confirmed through photographs, this ceiling damage was the same as the damage reported for the insured’s prior Hurricane Debby claim. No other interior damages were observed. On November 1, 2024, a letter of representation from your office was uploaded. This correspondence was received and reviewed by Frontline’s adjuster on or about November 25, 2024. On December 2, 2024, Frontline’s adjuster emailed your office a letter acknowledging your letter of representation, advising that a certified copy of the policy had been requested and that a coverage determination had yet to be reached. This correspondence also requested a copy of your firm W-9. On December 11, 2024, Frontline’s adjuster called your office to discuss Frontline’s coverage determination and the need for a copy of your firm W-9. He left a message requesting that you call back to discuss the coverage determination and payment. On December 26, 2024, Frontline’s adjuster again attempted to call your office. He left a message requesting a call back to discuss the claim. On January 3, 2025, Frontline’s adjuster again attempted to call your office. He left a message requesting a call back to discuss the claim. On January 13, 2025, Frontline’s adjuster again attempted to call your office. He left a message requesting a call back to discuss the claim. Later that day, Frontline’s adjuster sent you an email stating, “Hello Attorney Carrington Jones: I spoke with Jamie from your office today and explained my contact attempts as well as how long I have been trying to speak with you regarding the coverage determination on the claim. We will need to have a voice-to-voice call prior to any letters or payments being sent out regarding the coverage determination made for this claim file. Also, explained to Gabby and Jamie from your office, a copy of your W-9 will be needed for this claim file to have your law office added to the payment. As you can see based on the email below, a response to your LOR with a request for the W-9 was sent on December 02, 2024, the same day the letter was received to the claim. I also spoke with Jelise (not sure if that is the correct spelling) from your office on December 11, 2024, the same day the coverage determination was made on the claim, and she advised that you were unavailable, but she would relay my message to you for a call back. I attempted to follow up on December 26 and left a voice message requesting a call back to discuss the decision made on the claim. After not hearing back from your office and no receipt of the requested correspondence, I performed another follow up call on January 03, 2025. On that day, I spoke with Gabby with the same results I received from Jelise. I followed up again today, January 13, 2025, and spoke with Jamie. The claim file is pending a discussion with the handling attorney to discuss the coverage determination, and receipt of your W-9 to have the firm added to the claim file for payment protocol. Please give me a call back to discuss this claim. My office hours are Monday – Friday, 8am – 8pm est. My contact number can be found below in the signature block of this email.” On January 17, 2025, Frontline received an email from your office attaching your firm W-9, a tarp invoice from Restoration Army for $5,198.04, an estimate of damage, and a contingency agreement with 3MG Roofing. The damage estimate dated 12/19/24 did not state who completed the estimate. It included items for a roof replacement, exterior damage, and damage to the master bedroom that was the same as the insureds’ prior claim. Notably, the roof replacement portion of your estimate totaled $62,737.48, representing a staggering price of $1,206 per roofing square. On January 30, 2025, Frontline’s adjuster attempted to call your office. He left a message requesting a call back to discuss the claim. On February 3, 2025, Frontline’s adjuster again attempted to call your office. He left a message requesting a call back to discuss the claim. On February 4, 2025, Frontline received a call from your office scheduling a call with the attorney representing the insureds. On February 5, 2025, Frontline’s adjuster finally was able to speak with you regarding the claim and coverage determination and issuance of payment. The adjuster also advised you of the process to submit a supplemental claim if appropriate. The same day, Frontline sent correspondence to the insureds and your office advising that it found covered damage to their roof related to the subject claim. This correspondence enclosed Frontline’s damage estimate for a roof replacement in the amount of $27,085.21 - an amount in line with industry standards. Frontline’s letter advised that it would issue payment in the amount of $27,414.32 for a roof replacement plus the Restoration Army tarp invoice. Further, payment in the amount of $850.13 was issued for interest. Notably, the Frontline payments did not withhold depreciation or ordinance and law items. Frontline advised that the interior damage to the master bedroom would not be covered as it was attributable to the insureds’ prior claim, not Hurricane Milton. On March 21, 2025, without any further correspondence or discussions with Frontline, your firm hastily filed the subject Civil Remedy Notice, including gratuitous and conclusory statements without any factual support. The Notice also makes bases, broad-sweeping allegations about Frontline that have no merit nor any relation to this claim. On March 24, 2025, a Frontline adjuster emailed your office attaching non-privileged claim correspondence along with a copy of the subject policy. On March 28, 2025, my office, in representation of Frontline emailed you a letter raising initial deficiencies within the Notice and requesting additional information needed for Frontline can provide an informed response. More specifically, this correspondence requested: ? Any expert report(s) available supporting the claimed damage. ? The roofer’s estimate for the roof damage that the roofer observed. ? Any estimates for the interior water damage you believe is related to the subject claim. ? Any contracts the insureds have entered for repairs you believe are related to the subject claim. ? Proof of any payments the insureds have made for repairs you believe are related to the subject claim. ? Documents showing all prior repairs to the roof, interior, or attic at the subject property. ? Invoices, photos and receipts for all repairs made following Hurricane Debby. ? A Sworn Statement in Proof of Loss. We never received any response to these requests for information and documents. In light of Frontline’s investigation, coverage was properly accepted and payment was issued for covered damages in the amount of $27,414.32 for the subject claim, pursuant to the terms, conditions, exclusions, limits and deductible of the subject policy. Further, an interest payment was issued in the amount of $850.13 despite Frontline being unable to reach your office when attempting to finalize its coverage determination. Accordingly, First Protective Insurance Company denies any and all allegations of bad faith in connection with the claim submitted by Jason and Luann Modlin. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, /s/ Matthew Barclay Matthew K. Barclay, Esq.
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