Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     812672
Filing Accepted:  3/24/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
FINCH   First Name   CAROL
Street Address * 519 ROLLINGVIEW TEMPLE TERRACE
City, State Zip * TAMPA, FL 33617
Email Address * GFINCH1@TAMPABAY.RR.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   FINCH   First Name   CAROL
Policy # * 59-54-9023-0 Claim #* 59-75J0-10R
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* KRAPF First Name * GRANT Initial W
Street Address* 2790 SUNSET POINT RD
City, State Zip* CLEARWATER , FL 33759
Email Address * GRANT@KRAPFLEGAL.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10739
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* BLANNE SMART, LARRY HADLEY, MARK RIVERS, STEPHEN MCMILLON, AND ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL FROM, OR AGENT OF, STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY WHO WAS INVOLVED IN THE CLAIM.
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
Unfair Trade Practice
Other : Misrepresenting the terms of the insurance policy
Other : Not treating the Insured with good faith claims conduct
Other : Looking for ways to deny full recovery to the Insured
Other : Looking for ways to delay full recovery to the Insured
Other : Failing to properly investigate the Insured's loss
Other : Failing to provide the Insured with the full benefits awarded under the contract of insurance in a t
Other : Not training, supervising, or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made
Other : Not adjusting claims and evaluating loss properly
Other : Shifting the burden of insuring the loss to the Insured
Other : Intentionally misstating the terms, conditions, and benefits of the insurance policy to the insured
Other : Failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims
* Statutory provision(s) which the insurer allegedly violated.
 
624.155(1)(b)(1) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f) Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of the basis in the insurance policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

627.70131 (1)(a) - Upon an insurer's receiving a communication with respect to a claim, the insurer shall, within 7 calendar days, review and acknowledge receipt of such communication unless payment is made within that period of time or unless the failure to acknowledge is caused by factors beyond the control of the insurer. If the acknowledgment is not in writing, a notification indicating acknowledgment shall be made in the insurer's claim file and dated. A communication made to or by a representative of an insurer with respect to a claim shall constitute communication to or by the insurer. 627.4137(1)(e) Each insurer which does or may provide liability insurance coverage to pay all or a portion of any claim which might be made shall provide, within 30 days of the written request of the claimant, a statement, under oath, of a corporate officer or the insurer's claims manager or superintendent setting forth the following information with regard to each known policy of insurance, including excess or umbrella insurance: A copy of the policy. Reference to specific policy language: The violations alleged are statutorily based and do not rely on any specific policy language. "It is an accepted principle of law that when parties contract upon a matter which is the subject of statutory regulation, the parties are presumed to have entered into their agreement with reference to such statute, which becomes a part of the contract, unless the contract discloses a contrary intention." Westside EKG Assocs. v. Found. Health, 932 So. 2d 214, 216 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), aff'd, 944 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 2006).
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

State Farm Florida Insurance Company (the "Insurer") has committed the following in handling the Insured's claim: 1) failure to act in due diligence and good faith to resolve claims; 2) placing the financial interest of Insurer before that of the policyholder and the Insured; 3) looking for ways to deny benefit payments and otherwise "low ball" or "stone wall" claims; 4) not adjusting the claims promptly and fairly; 5) not attempting in good faith to settle claims; 6) conducting inadequate investigations; 7) failing to employ policies and procedures to conduct adequate investigations; 8) failing to provide an estimate that complies with the Florida Building Codes; 9) failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims; 10) failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of the basis in the insurance policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for denial of a claim; and 11) failing to provide a copy of the insurance policy within 30 days. On or about October 9, 2024, while the subject policy was in full force and effect, the Insured's property was severely damaged by Hurricane Milton. The areas impacted include but are not limited to the shingle roofing system, the modified bitumen roofing system, panel roof, exterior, two guest bedrooms, garage, laundry room, living room, and family room. The Insured timely submitted a claim to the Insurer for hurricane damage and the ensuing damage therefrom. Thereafter, the Insurer assigned claim number 59-75J0-10R to the loss and sent a field adjuster to inspect the property. Then in a letter dated November 6, 2024, the Insurer notified the Insured that it was extending coverage for the loss. However, the Insurer wrongfully determined that the damages did not exceed the policy deductible. The Insurer's lowball estimate is that of a classic under scope and under value of the claim. Given the vastly underestimated cost of repairs the Insured's disagreement with the coverage decision, and the scope and nature of the damage resulting from Hurricane Milton, the Insured retained a public adjuster. After assessing the damage and the true scope of repairs, the public adjuster produced an estimate identifying $78,946.87 in covered damage to the dwelling. The foregoing estimate, photographs, and a letter of representation from the public adjuster were sent to the Insurer. Upon receiving notice of the loss, the Insurer had the duty to provide the full benefits under the policy. This includes providing the Insured with a proper investigation and the funds necessary to return the home to its pre-loss condition. However, when the Insurer conducted its inspection of the insured property, the Insurer's adjuster failed to conduct a thorough and adequate investigation, or the adjuster intentionally ignored the damage observed and failed to make truthful and unbiased reports of the facts after investigating. As a result, the Insurer breached the policy by failing to fully indemnify the Insured for the covered loss. Rather than the Insurer pay for a roof replacement consistent with all laws and ordinances, the Insurer contends the roof is repairable which is not true. All repairs to the roofing system must be done in accordance with applicable Florida Building Codes which require all repairs be done consistent with the manufacturer's specifications and warranties which this Insurer clearly did not account for. Additionally, although there was interior water damage the adjuster did not use a moisture meter. A moisture meter can be purchased online from Amazon for around $40 before tax. The Insurer could purchase a moisture meter and assess thousands of properties with one meter. Instead, the Insurer would rather place its financial interests over those of the Insured by failing to provide the adjuster with the necessary tools to correctly inspect the loss. As a result of the inadequate investigation and surrounding circumstances it is apparent that Insurer significantly underestimated the scope of the loss to the Insured's property. Insurer and its adjuster have colluded to misrepresent the true scope of damages to the insured property and the true replacement costs of the damages. This is an underhanded attempt to place the financial interest of Insurer over those of the Insured, to delay the Insured's claim, and to delay the Insured in restoring his property to its pre-loss condition. The Insurer continued to delay and frustrated the Insured's ability to have her claim adjusted promptly to begin restoring her property by failing to timely provide the Insured with the policy after requested by the Insured through her representatives. The Insured, through her representatives, requested the policy several times with no response. The policy was not received within 30 days of the first written request of the Insured. Each Insurer which does or may provide liability insurance coverage to pay all or a portion of any claim which might be made shall provide, within 30 days of the written request of the Insured, a statement, under oath, of a corporate officer or the insurer's claims manager or superintendent, a copy of the policy. Fla. Stat. 627.4137(1)(e). There may be further wrongful conduct which has not been made known to the Insured at this moment. Certain conduct or actions may be discovered throughout discovery or cannot be verified without a review of the Insurer's claim file and standards and procedures for the adjustment and investigation of claims. In short, the Insurer is not acting with due regard for the Insured's interests or safety. In Florida the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. The Insurer has breached this trust and its duty to the Insured. The Insurer and its agents conducted cursory and inadequate investigations and wrongfully determined that the cost of repairs did not exceed the policy deductible. Moreover, the Insurer has engaged in bad faith practices designed to delay claims and prevent the Insured from recovering what is rightfully owed under the subject policy of insurance. The Insurer's actions and inactions have continued to frustrate and delay the resolution of the Insured claim. The Insurer's actions amount to but are not limited to the following: 1. Claim delay 2. Not treating the Insured with good faith claims conduct 3. Looking for way to reduce recovery to the Insured 4. Looking for ways to deny recovery to the Insured 5. Not adjusting claims and evaluating loss properly, promptly and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to the Insured 6. Not training, supervising or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made, but rather placing the company's interests before the Insured's interests 7. Placing the financial interest of the Insurer over that of the health and safety of the Insured 8. Failing to provide an estimate that complies with the Florida Building Codes 9. Shifting the burden of investigating onto the Insured 10. Conducting inadequate investigations 11. Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of the basis in the insurance policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for denial of a claim. 12. Failing to provide a copy of the insurance policy within 30 days Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this civil remedy notice, the Insurer must: (1). Admit full coverage for the Insured's loss. (2). Tender full benefits owed to the Insured under the insurance contract. A copy of this form submitted to the FDFS has been sent via e-mail to the following parties providing them notice of the filing of the civil remedy notice. Please e-mail any response to this civil remedy notice to badfaith@krapflegal.com. Via E-mail: State Farm Florida Insurance Company 7401 Cypress Gardens Blvd. Winter Haven, FL 33888-0007 statefarmfireclaims@statefarm.com
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
grant@krapflegal.com 02-10-2026 The details herein have been amicably resolved between the parties; therefore, we withdraw this Civil Remedy Notice. This Civil Remedy Notice is hereby withdrawn.
sregino@kelleykronenberg.com 05-15-2025 May 15, 2025 Via Electronic Submission Florida Department of Insurance Civil Remedy Section 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399 Re: Policyholder: CAROL S. FINCH Complainant: CAROL S. FINCH Policy Number: 59-54-9023-0 Claim Number: 59-75J0-10R Date of Loss: October 9, 2024 Date Reported: October 14, 2024 DFS File No.: 812672 Dear Ms. Carol S. Finch c/o Grant W. Krapf: This is State Farm Florida Insurance Company’s (“State Farm”) formal response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (“CRN”) filed on behalf of Carol Finch by attorney Grant W. Krapf, Esq. as it relates to Claim Number 59-75J0-10R. The Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) accepted the CRN on March 24, 2025, and assigned it filing number 812672. The following reply has been uploaded to the Department of Financial Services. Please accept this correspondence as State Farm’s response to the Civil Remedy notice. referenced claim. The Civil Remedy Notice filed on behalf of the Complainants is defective on its face and fails to allege sufficient facts in support of many of the purported violations with the required specificity mandated by Florida Statute §624.155. Additionally, State Farm asserts it has acted in good faith in its investigation and in accordance with terms, conditions, definitions, limitations, exclusions, and endorsements contained within the subject insurance policy. Accordingly, State Farm Florida Insurance Company demands the CRN be withdrawn. While State Farm Florida Insurance Company welcomes the opportunity to respond to this CRN and specifically denies each and every allegation contained in the CRN referenced above, State Farm requests the CRN be rejected as it fails to comply with several of the requirements of the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation document provisions as set forth in Florida Statute §624.155 and Florida case law. Further, after reviewing the CRN, State Farm denies all allegations contained in the Insured’s CRN. State Farm conducted a thorough review of its handling of the Insured’s claim, Subject Claim No.: 59-75J0-10R. State Farm denies that it has violated any of the statutes as alleged in the CRN. At all times, State Farm acted in good faith, fairly and honestly toward its Insured and with due regard for the Insureds’ interests. State Farm also argues that the CRN fails to adequately describe the alleged violations and fails to provide sufficient information to allow State Farm to correct the alleged violations. In order to resolve the ambiguity associated with the Civil Remedy Notice State Farm sent a good faith letter to obtain additional information on May 2, 2025 . As of the filing of this response there has been no response by Ms. Finch’s counsel. The CRN requires the Insureds to “indicate all statutory provisions alleged to have been violated," pursuant to section 624.155, F.S.. Because the CRN fails to identify the specific facts applicable to the listed statutes that were allegedly violated with respect to the subject claim, State Farm is unable to properly respond and said CRN should be rejected and returned. Specifically, Insureds allege the following violations of Florida Statutes: • § 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 and his interests. State Farm strictly denies any violation of any section of Florida Statute § 624.155(1) (b) (1). • § 626.9541(1) (i) (3) (c): Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. State Farm strictly denies any violation of Florida Statute §626.9541(1) (i) (3) (c). • § 626.9541(1) (i) (3) (f): Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of the basis in the insurance policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise of settlement. State Farm strictly denies any violation of Florida Statute § 626.9541(1) (i) (3) (f). • § 627.70131(1)(a): Upon an insured’s receiving a communication with respect to a claim, the insurer shall within 7 calendar days, review and acknowledge receipt of such communication unless payment is made within that period of time or unless the failure to acknowledge is caused by factors beyond the control of the insurer. If the acknowledgment is not in writing, a notification indicating acknowledgement shall be made in the insurer’s claim file and dated. A communication made to or by a representative of an insurer with respect to a claim shall constitute communication to or by the insurer. State Farm strictly denies any violation of Florida Statute §627.70131(1)(a). • § 627.4137(1)(e): Each insurer which does or may provide liability insurance coverage to pay all or a portion of any claim which might be made shall provide, within 30 days of the written request of the claimant, a statement, under oath, of a corporate officer or the insurer’s claims manager or superintendent setting forth the following information with regard to each known policy of insurance, including excess or umbrella insurance. State Farm specifically denies the Insureds’ allegations that State Farm violated the above referenced statutes, any portion of the administrative code, or any Florida Statute reference in the instant CRN. Also, the CRN fails to set forth any specific policy language alleged to have been violated in accordance with Florida Statute §624.155(3) (b) (4), other than listing a vague recitation of what they believe is the applicable policy language to the alleged violation. In fact, the CRN states that the CRN does not rely on any specific language. It is this failure to identify the specific policy provision(s) that is(are) allegedly relevant to the alleged violation(s) that prevent(s) State Farm from addressing any issues regarding the Subject Claim and Policy See Junior Julien v. United Property and Casualty Insurance Company, No. 4D9-2763 (Fla. 4th DC September 23, 2020). Furthermore, contrary to the requirement to “describe the facts and circumstances giving rise to the insurer’s violation as you understand them at this time,” the purpose of which is “to enable the insurer to investigate and resolve [the] claim,” the CRN itself only provides unsupported, vague, ambiguous, and incorrect allegations with no basis in fact or circumstances. Aside from the fact that the allegations are devoid of any specific facts, the tenor and inferences of the allegations are wholly without merit and State Farm denies each and every one. Finally, the Notice fails with respect to its requirement to specify how State Farm may “cure” the alleged violations. The purpose of a Civil Remedy Notice is to provide a carrier with one last opportunity to “cure” the alleged violations. In this instance, there is no indication at all what action State Farm needs to take to cure the alleged violations. Assuming arguendo, that the real “cure,” sought by the Insured, is payment of all insurance proceeds demanded by the Insured, notwithstanding State Farm’s right to investigate and adjust the loss. The method for curing the violations alleged in a civil remedy notice are not determined by the Insured. Section 624.155 does not impose on an insurer the obligation to pay whatever the insured demands. Section 624.155(2)(d) would have no effect or purpose under such an interpretation. In Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 753 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 2000), the Florida Supreme Court accepted and quoted the reasoning of the court below in its opinion which stated in relevant part, as follows: Section 624.155 does not impose on an insurer the obligation to pay whatever the insured demands. . . . Section 624.155(2)(d) would have no effect or purpose under such an interpretation. The law does not support such an expansive and illogical reading of Fla. Stat. Ann. §624.155(2)(d). . . . [t]o cure an alleged violation and to avoid a civil action, an insurer must pay the claim . . . before the sixty days expire. Talat, 753 So2d at 1282 citing Talat Enterprises Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 952 F.Supp. 773, 777-778 (M.D. Fla. 1996). The law does not support such an expansive and illogical reading of Fla. Stat. Ann. §624.155(2)(d). Talat, 753 So2d at 1282 citing Talat Enterprises Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 952 F.Supp. 773, 777-778 (M.D. Fla. 1996). For the aforementioned reasons, the Civil Remedy Notice is insufficient as a matter of law. State Farm acted in good faith, fairly and honestly toward the Insured in the adjustment of the instant claim. State Farm was contacted on August 5, 2024, and informed of a loss as a result of windstorm on August 4, 2024. State Farm promptly set up a date and time for an inspection by a licensed adjuster to determine the cause of loss, and if appropriate, cost to bring the property back to pre-loss condition. The property was inspected on August 19, 2024, and an estimate was completed. The estimate did not exceed the policy deducible therefore no payment was issued on the claim. On April 23, 2025, an additional inspection was performed by a licensed adjuster and a payment was subsequently issued to Ms. Finch for the loss. It is important to note, that while an insurance company is required to settle claims that should be settled, it is not required to settle claims that are legitimately contested. Florida law continually affirms the principle that an insurer has the right to investigate claims presented for payment. An insurance company is expressly afforded an opportunity to evaluate its rights and liabilities. Neither the subject policy nor does Florida law provide that a carrier must accept whatever demand for repairs it is provided by its Insureds as the amount necessary to repair a loss. In the instant case, the violations alleged by the Insured all revolve around the contention that that State Farm did not accept and pay the Insured’s full demand for repair. Fla. Stat. § 624.155(1)(b)(1): Denied. State Farm conducted a complete, thorough investigation of the loss utilizing two licensed adjusters to inspect the property and determine coverage for the damages. Based on the inspections of the property coverage was opened on claim. The Insureds have failed to provide documentation which disputes the findings of the adjuster’s investigation. Therefore, no violations of §624.155(1)(b)(1) have occurred. Fla. Stat. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c): Denied. State Farm has diligently answered Insured’s communications since the claim was initially reported to State Farm. Insured’s counsel and Insured’s public adjuster made several requests regarding the coverage decision letter. The coverage letter was subsequently provided to Insured’s counsel and public adjuster. Additionally, Insured’s counsel and public adjuster requested coverage for the interior of the property. State Farm provided a response to the request based upon their investigation of the claim. Insured’s counsel and public adjuster also provided the State Farm with estimates for the damage at the Property. State Farm issued correspondence confirming receipt of said estimates, reviewed the estimates and reached a coverage decision regarding the claim. State Farm also provided responses to the Sworn Proof of Loss received from Insured and a copy of the policy. As State Farm has provided the Insured with a copy of the policy therefore there have been no violations to §626.9541(1) (i) (3) (c) have occurred. Fla. Stat. § 626.9541(1) (i) (3) (f): Denied. After State Farm’s diligent investigation of the claim State Farm issued a coverage decision letter by which coverage was opened for said claim. A copy of said coverage decision letter was not only provided to the Insured but Insured’s counsel and public adjuster. As such Insured’s claim that a reasonable explanation in writing was not provided if false. Since a coverage decision letter was provided to the Insured which outlined a the reasonable explanation in writing for the basis of the insurance policy therefore was no violation to § 626.9541(1) (i) (3) (f) have occurred. Fla. Stat § 627.70131(1)(a): Denied. State Farm has diligently answered Insured’s communications since the claim was initially reported to State Farm. Insured’s counsel and Insured’s public adjuster made several requests regarding the coverage decision letter. The coverage letter was subsequently provided to Insured’s counsel and public adjuster. Additionally, Insured’s counsel and public adjuster requested coverage for the interior of the property. State Farm provided a response to the request based upon their investigation of the claim. Insured’s counsel and public adjuster also provided the State Farm with estimates for the damage at the Property. State Farm issued correspondence confirming receipt of said estimates, reviewed the estimates and reached a coverage decision regarding the claim. State Farm also provided responses to the Sworn Proof of Loss received from Insured and a copy of the policy. Since State Farm has provided responses to all communications therefore no violations to § 627.70131(1)(a) have occurred. Fla. Stat §627.4137(1)(e): Denied. The claim was reported to State Farm on October 14, 2024. There was an inspection of the Property on October 25, 2024. The coverage decision letter was issued regarding the claim on or about November 6, 2024. There were approximately twenty-one (21) days between the initiation of the claim and resolution of said claim. As coverage was provided well before the thirty days therefore no violations to §627.4137(1)(e) have occurred. In closing, State Farm takes the position that the CRN should be rejected and returned by the Department of Financial Services due to its failure to comply with Florida Statute §624.155 and Florida Case law, and regardless of the rejection, State Farm denies all allegations contained in the CRN and submits there are no violations to the insured. While this response is meant to be comprehensive, State Farm’s response above is based upon the limited information provided in the CRN and the information State Farm has to date. If the Insured, or Grant Krapf, Esq. is in possession of information or facts that State Farm is not in possession of, State Farm requests all such information or facts be provided to it immediately. Please note that State Farm’s response is not necessarily exhaustive and does not preclude it from asserting any other valid reason for seeking rejection and return of the CRN. Also, this letter or any act or failure to act on the part of State Farm or any agent or representative of State Farm should not be construed as a waiver of any rights or defenses available to it by contract or at law as all such rights and defenses are hereby specifically reserved. We trust that this response addresses the allegations of insurer violation alleged in the CRN of Insurer Violation. Should you have any questions regarding this matter or need anything further, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, Taylor R. Henderson Taylor R. Henderson, Esq. On behalf of State Farm Insurance Company cc: Grant W. Krapf, Esq. Counsel for Carol Finch assist@krapflegal.com
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