Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     812537
Filing Accepted:  3/23/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
BURTON   First Name   BASIL
Street Address * 3507 SWINDELL ROAD
City, State Zip * LAKELAND, FL 33810
Email Address * [WITHHELD]
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   BURTON   First Name  
Policy # * P000003724 Claim #* 254114
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* ROLLE First Name * CRAIG Initial
Street Address* 708 E. COLONIAL DR., SUITE 103
City, State Zip* ORLANDO , FLORIDA 32803
Email Address * CR@WEKLAW.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10117
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* SE BELOW
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Unfair Trade Practice
Claim Delay
Claim Denial
* 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.

Specific policy language contained in the Insureds' insurance contract that is relevant to the violations by Security First Insurance Company includes, but is not limited to, the following: Coverage A, B, C, D and E Provisions, all additional Coverage Provisions, all coverage provided by endorsement or rider, the declarations page, loss payment or settlement provisions, provisions pertaining to the duties in the event of a loss, all terms and conditions pertaining to Section I of the insurance policy, the insurance policy’s definitions section, the insurance policy’s exclusion of coverage provisions, all insurance policy provisions that provide coverage to the Insureds’ property; and all other relevant policy provisions.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

In consideration of payment of an annual premium, an all-risk residential property insurance policy was in full force and effect with Security First Insurance Company (“Carrier”) bearing policy number P000003724 and claim number 254114, for a property located at 3507 Swindell Road, Lakeland, FL 33810 (Property). The owner of the Property is the named Insured, Basil Burton (“Insured”). On or about 09/28/2022, the Insured’s Property suffered a loss from bad weather. In response, the Carrier assigned the above claim number to this loss and conducted an inspection of the Property. Shortly thereafter, the Carrier improperly denied coverage for this claim. Unhappy with the Carrier’s treatment and handling of this claim, the Insureds retained the undersigned counsel which could have been avoided had the Carrier properly investigated and correctly paid the entire estimate for this claim. The Carrier failed to promptly settle the Insureds’ insurance claim when the obligation to settle the insurance claim had become reasonably clear. The Carrier has therefore NOT acted in good faith during the adjustment of this claim. Specifically, the Carrier has violated the following statutory provisions under Florida law: • Carrier has violated Florida Statute § 624.155(1)(b)(3) by failing to promptly settle this obviously covered claim to influence settlement in its favor. Despite being presented with evidence that it has underpaid this claim, the Carrier still refuse to made additional payments. • The Carrier has violated Florida Statutes § 626.9541(1)(i)(2) and § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) by making material misrepresentations to the Insured for the purpose and with the intent to settle the claim on less favorable terms than those provided and contemplated by the policy. • The Carrier has also violated § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) when it failed to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigations of claims. Quite simply, CARRIER and its representatives are willfully blind and grossly underqualified to handle a loss such as the one sustained by the Insureds. In addition, after being placed on notice as to the blatant failure to properly adjust this claim, CARRIER has yet to rectify their actions and do right thing by the Insureds by paying the money they are contractually owed. We believe CARRIER will profit from its wrongful conduct and its behavior is tantamount to unfair claim settlement practices under Florida Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3). As noted above, the Carrier violated § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) by failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon the communications with respect to the claim. The Insureds have more than complied with every request and duty under the Policy and there has still been no action by CARRIER to rectify its underpayment of this claim. In the event the Carrier needs additional information, it has failed to promptly notify the Insureds in a timely manner. Moreover, this pattern of behavior is perpetuated by CARRIER and its representatives undeterred by the Ethical Requirements that are imposed by law on all Adjusters. Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. (3) explicitly states the adjustment of insurance claims engage the trust of the public, and therefore, an adjuster has a duty of fair and honest treatment of the Insureds throughout the insurance claim process. Several duties and responsibilities owed to the Insureds were violated in the handling of this claim, which are specifically listed responsibilities of an Adjuster in the Florida Administrative Code. These breached duties and responsibilities include adjusters from CARRIER approaching the investigation and settlement in a manner prejudicial to the Insured, failing to allow a fair settlement with her and acting with due diligence in achieving a proper disposition of the claim. In contrast to the legislative intent motivating the enumeration of an Adjuster’s responsibilities outlined in the Administrative Code, the Insureds were not afforded the professional duties entrusted on CARRIER by the public. As of the filing of this civil remedy notice, CARRIER has failed to adequately compensate the Insureds for the damage that occurred on or about February 4, 2024. As a direct result of CARRIER’s delay and failure to respond to the Insureds, they were forced to seek the help of legal counsel. Due to the amount of time that has passed since the date of loss, this acknowledgement is evidence that CARRIER knowingly and intentionally delayed the claims process to further disadvantage the Insureds. The financial detriment caused to the Insureds is a direct result of CARRIER’s reckless delay of the claim and litigation process. The Insureds were (and still are) dutiful customers who made it a priority to pay their insurance premiums to ensure that in such an event as this devastating incident, their home would be covered. In other words, the Insureds have held up her end of the contractual bargain whereas the Carrier has not. The Insureds timely filed her claim once they had discovered the source of the covered loss and the ensuring damage caused by it. All requested information and documentation were turned over to CARRIER and its representatives promptly by the Insured. CARRIER failed at every step of the process to adequately establish or identify the bCarriers of its gross mismanagement of the claim, failed to inform the Insureds how they may remedy any deficiencies in her claim, and failed to provide her with qualified representatives to ensure the claim was initially adjusted, evaluated, estimated properly, and paid fully. To deny the Insureds the benefit of their bargain after they have satisfied all of the obligations is morally and ethically reprehensible, and reeks of Unfair Trade Practice. Upon information and belief, the actions complained of, among others, made by CARRIER so often as to constitute a general business practice, evidencing a motive to enhance its profits, and designed to cause a detrimental effect to its policy holder. CARRIER was aware that the Insureds’ damages were covered under the policy yet took advantage of them in an attempt to force them into an irreparable disadvantaged position by underpaying the claim. The Carrier hopes that its conduct will force the Insured to settle for less coverage than they are contractually entitled to under the policy. This notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, should CARRIER fail to cure the violations set forth in this Civil Remedy Notice within the given time period. To cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, CARRIER must: (1) Immediately tender all insurance proceeds due and owing to the Insureds that are fairly owed to them under the insurance policy that would reasonably place them back to a pre-loss condition pursuant to the estimate of damages in the amount of $_$62,116.00
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
paul.laborde@securityfirstflorida.com 04-11-2025 Via Electronic Filing: Florida Department of Financial Services Bureau of Consumer Assistance c/o: Civil Remedy Section Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0322 Via Email: Craig Rolle 708 E. Colonial Drive Suite 103 Orlando FL 32803 CR@WEKLAW.COM Re: CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE OF INSURER VIOLATION Filing No.: 812537 Insured: Basil Burton Complainant: Basil Burton Complainant Type: Residential Property and Causalty Insurer: Security First Insurance Company Claim No.: 254114 Policy No.: P000003724 Date of Loss: 09/28/2022 Dear Sir or Madam: This correspondence represents the official response of Security First Insurance Company, (“Security First”) in the above referenced Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (hereinafter referred to as the “CRN”) that was filed by Craig Rolle on behalf of his Basil Burton (hereinafter referred to as “Complainant”). The Florida Department of Financial Services (hereinafter referred to as “Department”) assigned this CRN an acceptance date of 03/23/2025 and DFS File No.: 812537This matter concerns a property damage claim made by its Insured pursuant to a homeowners’ insurance policy provided by Security First Policy No. P000003724 and assigned Claim No; .254114 As the basis for filing the CRN against Security First, Craig Rolle asserts in the “Reasons for Notice” section violations such as Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer, Unfair Trade Practice, Claim Delay, Claim Denial along with the following statutory violations: 624.155(1)(b)(1) and 624.155(1)(b)(3) Security First welcomes this opportunity to respond to the CRN and denies each and every allegation contained therein. Security First does not consider there to have been any manner of violation and questions the validity of the Civil Remedy Notice, as it fails to adhere to the express requirements set forth under section 624.155, Florida Statutes, and Florida law, thus failing to perfect the Claimant’s rights to pursue civil remedies under the Florida Statutes. We note, at the outset, Security First has completed a proper investigation of Complainant’s claim. Security First investigated the interior and roofing and determined the extent of damages to the Complainant’s Subject Property. After completing its investigation, Security First issued a denial to the Insured. The dispute arises because the Complainant claims Security First engaged in Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer, Unfair Trade Practices, and Claim Delay, however, Complainant has been unable to provide evidence to support its claim. Furthermore, Complainant provided no factual basis for the alleged statutory violations other than a generalized, bald and conclusory allegations regarding its disagreement with Security First’s claim assessment. Click or tap here to enter text. However, there is no reference to the specific policy language regarding the purported water mitigation, reasonable emergency services or Coverage A policy limits and language regarding coverage other than mere general heading, which is also in a copy and paste fashion in this Notice and each of the additional Notices mass filed as previously mentioned. Furthermore, Complainant alleges that Security First should have provided coverage, but failed to identify the specific damages coverage allegedly should have been provided for, causation of those damages other than a date of loss, and how Security First engaged in the alleged violations. Security First is unable to identify what damages are alleged as “covered” despite the coverage decision, due to the vague nature of the Civil Remedy Notice and failure to identify specific language of the policy regarding coverage, other than a copy and paste title of Section 1 Perils Insured Against and the Loss Settlement Provision. Security First denies that any of its actions have resulted in any violation of Florida law, including any provisions of Florida Statute Sections 624.155 or 626.9541, as alleged in the CRN, or any other Florida statute or law. Contrary to the allegations in the CRN, Security First has not engaged in Unfair Trade Practices, Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer, or Claim Delay and indeed properly investigated the claim prior to its decision, and timely rendered a decision. Security First issued a coverage decision pursuant to the terms and conditions of the subject policy. Security First did not come to a coverage decision without first conducting a reasonable investigation. Additionally, the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations fails to adequately or sufficiently describe the alleged violations and fails to provide any facts supporting the alleged violations of the Florida Statutes, regarding Unfair Trade Practices, Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer, or Claim Delay other than bald and conclusory allegations. The Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations also fails to identify any specific policy language with which Security First has failed to comply, and merely cites general headings and titles as previously mentioned. Although this is important because Security First is unable to discern a cure to remedy the allegations. The CRN fails to establish a basis for coverage and specific acts during the investigation as unreasonable in relation to applicable policy provisions providing indemnification. Further, the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations fails to provide sufficient information to allow Security First to resolve the alleged violation. Overall, the CRN fails to provide a discernable cure as a result of the alleged violation considering the vague conclusory statement, lack of specific policy language, failure to assert facts regarding extra contractual damages and how any one individual, purportedly the “unqualified” individual that is “unknown” contributed to the alleged violations. Section 624.155, Florida Statues, is intended to allow an Insurer one last opportunity to remedy an alleged violation prior to the filing of any bad-faith lawsuit. This is known as the discernable cure requirement. Specific facts and recitation of specific policy language allows an Insurer to identify a cure demanded, and there is no requirement that the Complainant provide a specific demand. Click or tap here to enter text. It appears Craig Rolle is simply seeking payment without providing applicable policy language. Importantly, Security First is unable to discern a cure because of the lack of specific policy language, facts concerning the violation and/or identity of any one individual or “unqualified” person asserted in each of these Notices; these mass filings of copy and paste Civil Remedy Notices are examples of Notices lacking the prerequisite specificity required by Section 624.155, Florida Statutes and simply assert Buzz Words as the basis for the purported violations of Sections 624.155 or 626.9541. At all times, Security First has acted in good faith in its handling of the claim and it has acted fairly, honestly, and with due regard for the Complainant’s interest and in determining obligations to Complainant. Sincerely, Paul LaBorde P208776 Security First Insurance Company P.O. Box 105649 Atlanta, GA 30348-5649 Paul.laborde@securityfirstflorida.com Telephone Number: 386-858-1762
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