Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     812777
Filing Accepted:  3/24/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
CARDENAS   First Name   MILCIADES
Street Address * 662 FLORIDA PKWY
City, State Zip * KISSIMMEE, FL 34743
Email Address * LUZ@THEPROPERTYADVOCATES.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   CARDENAS   First Name   MILCIADES
Policy # * P000200827 Claim #* 139492
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* BORGES First Name * LUZ Initial
Street Address* 2525 PONCE DE LEON BLVD, SUITE 600
City, State Zip* CORAL GABLES , FL 33134
Email Address * LUZ@THEPROPERTYADVOCATES.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):* N/A
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
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.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i) Failing to pay personal injury protection insurance claims within the time periods required by s. 627.736(4)(b).
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Policy provision which requires carrier to pay full amount of damages for covered losses, specifically direct loss resulting in physical damage to covered property as a result of wind. SPECIFIC POLICY LANGUAGE THAT IS RELEVANT TO THE VIOLATIONS INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, THE FOLLOWING: COVERAGE A PROVISION, COVERAGE D PROVISION, 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 INSURED 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.

On or about 09/10/2017, the insured suffered property damage due to a hurricane, Hurricane Irma, that resulted in damage to the property. The insured timely reported the damages to the carrier and allowed the carrier to inspect the property. The carrier covered the loss and issued insufficient payment to the insured. The insured incurred repair efforts and requested for the carrier to reopen his claim. As a result, permitted the carrier to inspect a second time, and submitted a sworn proof of loss and repair estimate with the full amount of damages, which the carrier has refused to pay. As a result, the insured has exercised its right by pursuing a lawsuit, incurring litigation costs, submitting himself to a deposition, and retaining experts, including an engineer who re-inspected and created a written opinion, and an unbiased licensed general contractor who created a revised estimate of damages, both of which have been submitted to the carrier through their counsel, to no avail. Accordingly, the insured is seeking to be made whole, and in order to avoid a finding of bad faith, the carrier must tender the full amount of the insured's estimate, $53,526.65, minus any prior payments and deductible, within 60 days.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
luz@thepropertyadvocates.com 12-02-2025 As of today's date, pursuant to a good faith settlement with the carrier, I, Luz Borges, Esq., as attorney of record for the Insured, formally withdraw this Amended CRN 812777 as well as the original CRN 851963.
luz@thepropertyadvocates.com 10-29-2025 As of October 29, 2025, by and through undersigned counsel, Plaintiff has filed an Amended CRN for this violation with Filing 851963.
stewart.pedigo@securityfirstflorida.com 04-17-2025 Filing No.: 812777 Insured: MILCIADES CARDENAS Insurer: Security First Insurance Company Claim No.: 139492 Policy No.: P000200827 Date of Loss: 09/11/2017 Dear Sir or Madam: This correspondence is in response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (hereinafter referred to as the “CRN”) was filed by Luz Borges on behalf of his client, Milciades Cardenas (hereinafter referred to as “Insured”). Please be advised that the undersigned represents the interests of Security First Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as “Security First”) with respect to the above-referenced matter. The Florida Department of Financial Services (hereinafter referred to as “Department”) assigned this CRN an acceptance date of 3/24/2025 and DFS File No.: 812777. This matter concerns a property damage claim made by the Insured pursuant to a homeowners’ insurance policy provided by Security First Policy No. P000200827 and assigned Claim No. 139492. As the basis for filing the CRN against Security First, Milciades Cardenas asserts in the “Reasons for Notice” section violations such as _ Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer and Claim Denial, along with the following statutory violations: 624.155(1)(b)(1) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests, 624.155(1)(b)(3) Except as to liability coverages, failing to promptly settle claims, when the obligation to settle a claim has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage, 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims, and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i) Failing to pay personal injury protection insurance claims within the time periods required by s. 627.736(4)(b). Security First welcomes this opportunity to respond to the CRN and denies each allegation contained therein. The allegations made in the CRN are premature, as the insured has failed to perfect the claim for bad faith and the CRN does not meet the specificity requirement of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. This CRN does not sufficiently support the allegations stated above. As is standard procedure, upon the first notice of the claim, the subject property was dutifully inspected by an SFIC representative, which was documented through photographs. The Hurricane Ian claim was reported on 1/19/2018. Security First Insurance Company inspected by a field adjuster on January 22, 2018. Security First extended coverage for storm related damage to the fence, stucco damage on the right elevation and fascia/soffit damage on the back elevation. After a Letter of Representation from an attorney firm was received on 10/22/2019. SFI reinspected with ProClaim Engineering on 2/18/2020 and a Field Adjuster on 2/25/2020. No additional storm related damage was observed. I. Perfecting a Claim for Bad Faith SFIC specifically denies all allegations set forth in the Notice. SFIC contends that the Notice should be rejected and returned by the Department of Financial Services as it is premature. Pursuant to statute, there is no potential violation until a breach of contract is established. § 624.1551, Florida Statutes. Accordingly, any Notice filed prior to a finding that SFIC has breached the terms of the policy, is not ripe and is premature and thus fails to perfect Robert and Patricia Mazzaro rights to pursue civil remedies under Florida Statutes. II. Specificity Requirement The Insured’s CRN violates multiple requirements set forth in the Florida courts’ jurisprudence for Civil Remedy Notices. In addition, it fails to meet even the most basic requirements of the Statute. Pursuant to the terms of the statute, (3)(a) As a condition precedent to bringing an action under this section, the department and the authorized insurer must have been given 60 days’ written notice of the violations. Notice to the authorized insurer must be provided by the department to the e-mail address designated by the insurer under s. 624.422. a. The 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 (emphasis added): b. (3)(a) As a condition precedent to bringing an action under this section, the department and the authorized insurer must have been given 60 days’ written notice of the violations. Notice to the authorized insurer must be provided by the department to the e-mail address designated by the insurer under s. 624.422. i. The statutory provision, including the specific language of the statute, which the authorized insurer allegedly violated. ii. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation. iii. The name of any individual involved in the violation. iv. 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. v. A statement that the notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section. In interpreting this statute, courts have emphasized the importance of filing specific civil remedy notices. The civil remedy notice is “crucial to the procedural integrity of an action” under the Statute. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Clohessy, 32 F.Supp.2d 1328, 1333 (M.D. Fla. 1998). “It is, without a doubt, a condition that must be satisfied in order for one to perfect the right to sue under the statute.” Id. “In creating this statutory remedy for bad- faith actions, the Legislature provided this sixty-day window as a last opportunity for insurers to comply with their claim-handling obligations when a good-faith decision by the insurer would indicate that contractual benefits are owed.” Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 2000). Thus, the Notice cannot be “vague and ‘shotgun’ in nature,” rather than “the type of specific notice required by the statute that would allow [the insurer] an opportunity to cure.” Heritage Corp. of South Florida v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 580 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1299 (S.D. Fla. 2008). Because it is in derogation of the common law, Section 624.155(1)(b), Florida Statutes must be strictly construed. Talat, 753 So. 2d at 1283 (citing Baxter v. Royal Indem. Co., 285 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). To perfect the right to sue under the statute, the insured must specifically notify the insured of any and all alleged violations claimed. Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 952 F.Supp. 773, 776 (M.D. Fla. 1996) (“Talat I”) See Fox v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., No. 8:16-CV-3254-T-23MAP, 2017 WL 1541294, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2017) (sufficiency means specificity). In Junior Julien v. United Property and Casualty Insurance Company, 311 So.3d 875, 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021), the Honorable Court stated: The Middle District of Florida was confronted with a civil remedy notice that was similarly broad in scope and concluded that listing nearly all policy provisions on the notice did not satisfy the statute. Fox v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., No. 8:16-CV-3254-T-23MAP, 2017 WL 1541294, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2017). The court explained that “[i]f the statute contained no specificity requirement, [then] the [insureds’] casual ‘reference’ to the entire insurance policy undoubtedly would suffice.” Id. But, the court continued, “the Legislature included ‘specific’ or a variant not once but twice in the statute.” Id. As a result, the insureds’ listing of whole sections of the insurance policy “appear[ed] to lack specificity.” Id. In Valenti, the District Court for the Middle District of Florida considered the practical consequences of an insured’s non-specific civil remedy notice. Valenti v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America, 2006 WL 1627276 (M.D. Fla. 2006). The plaintiff’s civil remedy notice included allegations that the defendant conducted an inadequate investigation. The plaintiff, however, failed to identify with the requisite specificity the defendant’s actions that were inadequate. The Middle District held that the plaintiff’s civil remedy notice was insufficient, and stated the following: [T]he civil remedy notice must be specific enough to provide insurers notice of the wrongdoing so the insurer can cure the same within sixty days. … Plaintiffs’ counsel, during the hearing in this matter, argued a civil remedy notice that states “you denied my claim” should be sufficient to place the insurer on notice of what was needed to be cured. Plaintiffs’ counsel further argued that it was up to the insurer, as the insurance expert, to decipher what actions needed to be cured. This argument, in this Court's estimation, is illogical and is counter to the purpose of the civil remedy notice. If a simple “you denied my claim” was sufficient to put insurers on notice, the sixty-day cure period would be little more than a guessing game with the insurer attempting to correctly guess what errors the insured claimed it made in the claims handling process, or risk defending a bad faith action. This surely is not what the legislature had in mind when it created the civil remedy notice. Accordingly, this Court finds that Plaintiffs allegation that Defendant failed to conduct an adequate investigation is insufficient to provide Defendant an opportunity to cure. Id. at *2. The guidance for an insured could not be more clear. “The purpose of the civil remedy notice is to give the insurer one last chance to settle a claim with its insured and avoid unnecessary bad faith litigation.” Lane v. Westfield Insurance Co., 862 So. 2d 774, 779 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Its purpose is not “to give the insured a right of action to proceed against the insurer even after the insured’s claim has been paid or resolved.” Id. Ultimately, conclusory allegations without facts fail to perfect a statutory bad faith claim. Merely alleging the bare minimum allegations is insufficient pursuant to Florida courts’ interpretations of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. III. Conclusion 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 Insured’s interest and in determining obligations to Insured. Specifically, Security First has complied with its obligations under the applicable Florida Statutes and the applicable Security First Insurance policy. Security First specifically denies any claim for bad faith and argues that the insured’s claim for bad faith is premature. Security First continues to reserve all its rights under the policy, at law and in equity. Regardless, Insured’s conclusory allegations fail to place Security First on notice of any purported violations. Furthermore, the Civil Remedy Notice fails to identify how to cure the allegations set forth. The allegations are without basis. It is clear Security First properly handled and adequately investigated the claim. We hope that this response has answered any concerns regarding this matter. If the Department has any question concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Stewart Pedigo Security First Insurance Company 1001 Broadway Avenue Ormond Beach, Florida 32714 stewart.pedigo@securityfirstflorida.com Telephone Number: 386/242-2475
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