Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     812935
Filing Accepted:  3/25/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
MCCANTS   First Name   HAROLD
Street Address * 27235 CORAL SPRINGS DRIVE
City, State Zip * WESLEY CHAPEL, FL 33544
Email Address * DIOWANI@YAHOO.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   MCCANTS   First Name   HAROLD
Policy # * 9118129257 Claim #* 01000111554
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*   FIRST PROTECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10897
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* LOURDES MENDOZA, KAREN MONCADA, RYAN BLATZ, AND ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL FROM, OR AGENT OF, FIRST PROTECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY D/B/A FRONTLINE INSURANCE COMPANY > WHO WAS INVOLVED IN THE CLAIM.
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
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)(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.
* 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. 627.70131(7)(a)Within 60 days after an insurer receives notice of an initial, reopened, or supplemental property insurance claim from a policyholder, the insurer shall pay or deny such claim or a portion of the claim unless the failure to pay is caused by factors beyond the control of the insurer. The insurer shall provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the policyholder of the basis in the insurance policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for the payment, denial, or partial denial of a claim. If the insurer's claim payment is less than specified in any insurer's detailed estimate of the amount of the loss, the insurer must provide a reasonable explanation in writing of the difference to the policyholder. Any payment of an initial or supplemental claim or portion of such claim made 60 days after the insurer receives notice of the claim, or made after the expiration of any additional timeframe provided to pay or deny a claim or a portion of a claim made pursuant to an order of the office finding factors beyond the control of the insurer, whichever is later, bears interest at the rate set forth in s. 55.03. Interest begins to accrue from the date the insurer receives notice of the claim. The provisions of this subsection may not be waived, voided, or nullified by the terms of the insurance policy. If there is a right to prejudgment interest, the insured must select whether to receive prejudgment interest or interest under this subsection. Interest is payable when the claim or portion of the claim is paid. Failure to comply with this subsection constitutes a violation of this code. However, failure to comply with this subsection does not form the sole basis for a private cause of action. 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.

First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline 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) denying a claim which it knew or should have known the policy and Florida law provided coverage for; 9) failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims; and 10) failing to render a claims determination within sixty (60) days On or about February 4, 2024, while the subject policy was in full force and effect, the Insured's property was severely damaged by wind. The Insured timely submitted a claim on April 15, 2024, to the Insurer for wind damage and the ensuing damage therefrom. Thereafter, the Insurer assigned claim number 01000111554 to the loss and sent a field adjuster to inspect the property on April 20, 2024. The Insurer thereafter retained an engineer who inspected the property on June 27, 2024. Then in a letter dated July 24, 2024, the Insurer notified the Insured that it was denying coverage for the loss. This coverage decision is incorrect. Denying coverage for the damage was wrongful as the damages are covered under the policy. 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. The Insurer misrepresented the loss and wrongfully denied coverage for the damage sustained to the Insured's property. According to the claims determination letter, the Insurer's engineer observed damage to the property but attributed the cause of this damage to several causes excluded under the policy. However, the Insurer knows or should know that when independent perils converge and no single cause can be considered the sole or proximate cause, it is appropriate to apply the concurring cause doctrine. Sebo v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 208 So. 3d 694, 697 (Fla. 2016). The concurring cause doctrine states that coverage may exist where an insured risk constitutes a concurrent cause of the loss even when it is not the prime or efficient cause. Id. at 698. A covered peril that meets with an uncovered peril may still provide for coverage under a policy when the covered peril triggered the events that eventually led to the loss. Id. at 697. The Insurer intentionally ignored covered damage to deny the reported loss and wrongfully fail to pay the Insured. This is an underhanded attempt to place the financial interests of the Insurer over those of the Insured and to delay and frustrate the Insured's ability to have his claim adjusted promptly to begin restoring his property. 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 has placed obstacles to its Insured's ability to have the claim adjusted promptly to begin restoring the home by waiting more than sixty (60) days after receiving notice of the Insured's claim to make a claims determination. The Insured first reported the loss on April 15, 2024. The Insurer did not render a claims determination until July 24, 2024. Under Fla. Stat. 627.70131(7)(a), "[w]ithin 60 days after an insurer receives notice of an initial, reopened, or supplemental property insurance claim from a policyholder, the insurer shall pay or deny such claim or a portion of the claim unless the failure to pay is caused by factors beyond the control of the insurer." There were no factors outside of the Insurer's control. The Insurer has inspected the property and received a repair estimate, photographic evidence of the damage, and a sworn proof of loss. As the Insurer has failed to make a timely determination, it has violated this code. As such, in addition to the below requirements to cure this CRN, any payment made to the Insured must contain interest for the damage as a result of the loss from the date the Insurer received first notice of the loss. Lastly, the Insurer failed to respond within 7 days to the Insured, and his agents' requests. The Insured's legal counsel sent a letter of representation on March 14, 2024. The Insurer has failed to acknowledge or respond to this communication. Upon an Insurer's receiving a communication with respect to a claim, the Insurer is required, within seven (7) calendar days, to 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 which reasonably prevents such acknowledgement. There has been no response within the seven (7) calendar days of receipt of the Insured's communication and the Insurer has not alleged any factors beyond its control that would make such communication impossible. Insurers have a duty to settle claims in good faith when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its Insureds and with due regard for her interests. The Insurer has failed or refused to promptly acknowledge the Insured's communications in an attempt to frustrate and delay the resolution of the Insured's claim. 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 denied coverage for a loss that should have been covered under the subject policy. 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 denial 2. Claim delay 3. Not treating the Insured with good faith claims conduct 4. Looking for way to reduce recovery to the Insured 5. Looking for ways to deny recovery to the Insured 6. Not adjusting claims and evaluating loss properly, promptly and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to the Insured 7. 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 8. Placing the financial interest of the Insurer over that of the health and safety of the Insured 9. Shifting the burden of investigating onto the Insured 10. Conducting inadequate investigations 11. Failing to render a written claims determination to the Insured within 60 days 12. Making material misrepresentations 13. Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims 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: First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Insurance Company 500 International Parkway Lake Mary, FL 32746 info@flhi.com
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
kferry@camboferry.com 05-21-2025 May 21, 2025 Via E-Mail & Uploaded to DFS Harold McCants c/o Grant Krapf, Esq. Krapf Legal 2790 Sunset Point Rd. Clearwater, FL 33759 grant@krapflegal.com RE: Claim Number: 01000111554 Claimant(s): Harold McCants Policy Number: 9118129257 Loss Location: 27235 Coral Springs Dr Wesley Chapel, FL 33544 DFS Filing No: 812935 Dear Mr. Krapf: As you know, my firm represents First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Insurance (“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 812935 you filed on behalf of Harold McCants. As an initial matter, please note that the CRN names only Harold McCants as complainant, however, the subject policy was issued to both Harold McCants and Sithu McCants. 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 “intentionally ignored covered damage to deny the reported loss and wrongfully fail to pay the Insured.” 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). Further, the boilerplate CRN lacks sufficient specificity to provide notice of the alleged bad-faith conduct. The CRN lists six 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 six 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. Finally, the Notice is invalid because it does not list a specific cure for the alleged violations. In Talat, the Florida Supreme Court said that to “cure” a Notice, an insurer must pay the amount owed pursuant to the express terms and conditions of the policy.” However, the Notice here states that Frontline “must (1) [a]dmit full coverage for the Insured's loss (2) [t]ender full benefits owed to the Insured under the insurance contract.” No cure amount of any kind is provided and Frontline is left to guess what would be required to “cure” the alleged violations. It is improper for a civil remedy notice to not contain a cure, therefore the CRN is invalid. Talat, 753 So. 2d at 1282–83; see also Francois v. Illinois Nat. Ins. Co., 01-CV-8070, 2002 WL 33760405, at *4 (S.D. Fla. 2002) aff'd, 49 Fed. Appx. 290 (11th Cir. 2002). Frontline will also note that the Notice fails to acknowledge that Frontline’s thorough investigation of the claim and that its coverage determination is supported by the available facts and engineer findings. To be clear, counsel for the Insured has filed nearly 11,000 civil remedy notices against more than 40 different insurance companies. Moreover, the majority of the factual allegations in each of those notices filed on behalf of his clients appear to be very, very similar if not identical in both form and content. This conduct appears to be a business practice designed to force insurance carriers into settlement without regard to the actual facts, policy, and claims handling related to a specific claim. This conduct undermines the purpose of the Notice. 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 April 15, 2024 with a reported date of loss of February 4, 2024, for purported wind damage at the subject property located at 27235 Coral Springs Dr Wesley Chapel, FL 33544. The claim was reported four days after Mr. McCants signed a contract with a public adjuster. The same day the claim was reported, Frontline sent the insureds correspondence acknowledging their claim and advising them of their rights and obligations under the Policy. Frontline assigned an adjuster who attempted to call the insureds. They did not answer and the adjuster left a voicemail requesting a call back to discuss the claim. On April 19, 2024, Frontline’s adjuster again attempted to contact the insureds telephonically and left a detailed voicemail. Frontline’s adjuster followed up with an email requesting a call back. This correspondence also provided information regarding the claim process and requested information including 1) photographs of the damage taken at the time of the loss, 2) any notes, reports or estimates obtained relating to the claim and 3) an executed Sworn Statement in Proof of Loss. A Sworn Proof of Loss form was sent for the insureds to complete and execute. A field adjuster inspection was coordinated. On April 20, 2024, an independent field adjuster inspected the property on behalf of Frontline with Mr. McCants present for the inspection. While the observed conditions appeared to be long term, Frontline later contacted an engineer to further assess the cause and duration of these conditions. On May 2, 2024, Frontline received a letter of representation from the insured’s public adjuster. On May 14, 2024, Frontline conducted a recorded statement with the insured, Mr. McCants. During this call, Mr. McCants advised that a roofer inspected his roof and found damage. The roofer got him in touch with a public adjuster, who initiated the claim. He reported concerns of damage to the roof, master bathroom, patio, garage and corridor upstairs. He reported that there was no exterior damage besides the roof and gutters. On May 15, 2024, Frontline’s adjuster sent the public adjuster a copy of the subject insurance policy. Frontline’s adjuster sent an email to Mr. McCants requesting a copy of his pre-purchase inspection report, photographs of the purported damage, reports/estimates, and Sworn Proof of Loss, as those items which were previously requested, had not been submitted. On June 18, 2024, after not receiving all requested documents, Frontline sent a letter to the insureds and their public adjuster reserving Frontline’s rights under the policy and requesting information needed to complete its investigation of the claim. The reservation of rights noted that the claim was reported seventy-one days after the reported date of loss, that it was questionable whether the insureds cooperated with the investigation and noted that a Sworn Proof of Loss was not received within sixty days of the loss. The following information/documents were requested: • Inspection: Our engineer will schedule an inspection of the insured property. We asked that you attend the inspection. • Rebuild Estimates/Invoices: Submit all related estimates, invoices, contracts, Assignment of Benefits, work authorizations, photos and supporting documentation from all repair firms. Including but not limited to all related documents from AM Roofing and Waterproofing. • Proof of Loss: Submit a Sworn Statement in Proof of Loss executed by all named insureds. • Home Inspection and Sellers’ Disclosure: Provide the pre-purchase home inspection report and seller’s disclosure pertaining to your 2018 purchase of the insured location. On June 27, 2024, an engineer inspected the subject property in order to further Frontline’s investigation of the claim. Mr. McCants and a representative of AM Roofing were also present for the inspection. At this meeting, Mr. McCants stated that no hail was observed during the February 4th storm. He stated that he eventually noticed interior water staining and missing shingles. He reported that no reports had been made, but that AM Roofing had placed a temporary peel-and-stick flashing on areas of the roof. On July 8, 2024, the inspecting engineer completed his report, which included Mr. McCants’ comments, analysis of the property conditions, and conclusions regarding the cause and duration of the damage. The engineer report included the following conclusions with analysis: • Based on the NOAA storm reports, no hail was reported within 10 miles of the subject property between January 28, 2024, and February 11, 2024. Canopy Weather reports that no notable hail fell at this property on February 4, 2024. However, since hailfall occurs in localized pockets or swaths, on-site collateral indicators provide the most conclusive evidence of hail size at any given location. Round and linear dents with accompanying creases are often associated with man-made activity, and therefore, the damage to the mailbox is not consistent with impacts caused by hail falling on the property. No evidence of hail falling on-site is evident in the collateral indicators at ground level or on the roof of this house. • Controlled laboratory testing has found that hail smaller than 1 ¼ inch in diameter and less than 2 inches in diameter lacks sufficient mass to cause a loss in functionality or integrity to sound dimensional-style, fiberglass-mat asphalt shingles and single-ply membrane roofs, respectively. No indentations, bruises, or mat fractures consistent with hail impacts are on the shingles or membrane roof. The roof covering is not hail-damaged. • A study of weather data indicates that the maximum wind gusts near this property were up to 38 mph between January 28 and February 11, 2024. The reported wind speeds are insufficient to damage competent dimensional-style, fiberglass-mat asphalt shingles or a single-ply membrane roof. However, since wind speeds and weather patterns can vary over short distances, on-site collateral indicators provide the most conclusive evidence of wind at any given location. Two displaced window screens and one isolated pool enclosure tear, without other supporting indicators, are not sufficient evidence of strong winds occurring on the property. • Dimensional-style, fiberglass-mat asphalt shingles tend to be fully removed from the roof when subjected to high winds rather than experiencing bending and creasing. This will often occur in groups of shingles, particularly in those shingles that are most susceptible to high winds along the ridges, eaves, rakes, and valleys. Although several hip cap shingles are removed in groups, the missing shingles are on roof slopes facing all directions, which is inconsistent with the directionality of wind. Additionally, sporadic hip cap shingles that have been scattered throughout the roof have partial horizontal tears from the end of the shingle, indicative of a shingle that has been manually lifted and removed by hand. The other creases and tears throughout the roof are localized tears to a portion of the shingle. Sporadically, these tears are jagged or in irregular shapes that are not consistent with damage caused by wind uplift. The single-ply membrane roof is not lifted, torn, or peeled back in a manner consistent with wind. The partially unsealed seam is consistent with normal age-related deterioration and not related to hail or wind. The roof covering is not wind-damaged. No storm-created openings are in the roof covering. • As mentioned above, the localized tears and creases in the hip cap and field shingles are consistent with manual lifting of the shingles or foot traffic. In total, 15 shingles are creased or torn, and several other hip cap shingles are missing due to man made damage. Six shingles are torn and tattered along the edges due to contact with low-hanging branches. • The color of the asphalt mat in areas of torn shingles indicates how much time has passed since the shingle was torn. The dark color in the areas of torn hip cap shingles indicates that the tears are recent within the last 6 months. However, the faded color of the asphalt mat in the other field shingle tears indicates that these damages are older than the tears in the hip cap shingles. • The partially unsealed corners of shingles are pliable and can be lifted to expose the underlying nail heads without creasing or tearing the shingles. The shingles can be spot-repaired. • The garage ceiling stains are directly below roof-to-wall transitions in areas where no shingles are missing. The stucco stop along the bottom of the second-floor façade is void of weeps, causing any water that bypasses the stucco or brick to become trapped within the wall system. Once the water is trapped, it drains to the interior, collecting on the garage ceiling below. The garage water intrusion is due to either inadequate drainage of the second-floor wall system or flashing defects along the roof to-wall transitions above the garage. The water intrusion is unrelated to hail or wind. • The cracks in the second-floor ceiling finishes are not consistent with damage caused by water intrusion. Discoloration along thin cracks that extend from the corners of walls or along abutting walls is typical of construction defects in drywall. The hallway and master bathroom ceiling cracks and discoloration are due to drywall construction defects, which are unrelated to hail or wind. • The water intrusion at the dining room exterior doorway is directly below a partially unsealed seam in the membrane roof. The lanai roof slopes down to this open seam along the second-floor exterior wall, causing water to collect along the wall and enter the interior through this open seam. The dining room water intrusion is due to an unsealed seam in the single-ply membrane roof caused by normal age-related deterioration. A more succinct summary of his conclusions were also included, reading as follows: • No evidence of hail falling on-site is evident in the collateral indicators at ground level or on the roof of this house. • The collateral indicators provide evidence that the storm winds at this site were insufficient to damage an otherwise competent asphalt shingle or single-ply membrane roof. • The roof covering is not hail or wind-damaged. • No storm-created openings are on the roof covering. • In total, 15 shingles are creased or torn, and several other hip cap shingles are missing due to man-made damage. • Six shingles are torn and tattered along the edges due to contact with low hanging branches. • The shingles can be spot-repaired. • The garage water intrusion is due to either inadequate drainage of the second-floor wall system or flashing defects along the roof-to-wall transitions above the garage, which is unrelated to hail or wind. • The hallway and master bathroom ceiling cracks and discoloration are due to drywall construction defects, which are unrelated to hail or wind. • The dining room water intrusion is due to an unsealed seam in the membrane roof caused by normal age-related deterioration. The engineer’s findings were consistent with photographs of the damage. On July 24, 2024, after receipt and review of the engineer’s report, Frontline issued its coverage determination letter detailing its investigation and inspections of the property and advising that no coverage was found consistent with the terms, conditions and exclusions of the subject policy. Frontline noted, “[y]our Homeowners Policy does not provide coverage for wear and tear, deterioration, mechanical breakdown, cracking, faulty workmanship, inadequate materials used in construction and maintenance. As such, based upon the terms and conditions of your insurance policy, Frontline must respectfully deny your claim.” Pertinent policy language was included in this correspondence. The same day, Frontline’s adjuster called the public adjuster and discussed the coverage determination and basis for same. On September 11, 2024, Frontline received an email from the insureds’ public adjuster, attaching a Sworn Proof of Loss form signed by Mr. McCants. This form noted alleged total damages in the amount of $48,454.28. No estimate was included. Notably, the Sworn Proof of Loss was signed by Harold McCants but not Sithu McCants. Also, the Sworn Proof of Loss was received 220 days after the date of loss and 149 days after Frontline’s first request for this document. On September 13, 2024, Frontline sent a letter acknowledging receipt of the Sworn Proof of Loss while noting that it failed to comply with policy requirements. This correspondence specified that the Sworn Proof of Loss was not submitted within sixty days of the loss and that the insureds failed to provide specifications of the damage as no estimate or photographs were provided to Frontline. On February 19, 2025, Frontline received an email from the public adjuster attaching the same Sworn Proof of Loss form along with an estimate from Royal Palms Construction. This estimate included a roof replacement for $36,485.89, an amount completely out of line with industry standards. It also included repairs to the garage and general items, bringing the total of the estimate to $48,454.28. However, the portion of the estimate that recaps by room totals $39,689.78, a different amount than noted previously in the estimate. Notably, this was the first time the insureds or their representatives ever sent an estimate of damage to Frontline. On February 27, 2025, Frontline sent a letter acknowledging receipt of the Sworn Proof of Loss while noting that it failed to comply with policy requirements. This correspondence specified that the Sworn Proof of Loss was not submitted within sixty days of the loss and that it was not signed by all named insureds. On the same day, Frontline sent the public adjuster a copy of the coverage determination letter and engineering report detailed above. On March 14, 2025, your office sent a letter of representation to Frontline and filed a Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation. On March 20, 2025, Frontline sent you a letter acknowledging your representation and attached prior claim correspondence as requested. On March 25, 2025, your office filed the Civil Remedy Notice to which Frontline is now responding. As noted above, the CRN was not sufficient under Florida law. On March 27, 2025, Frontline sent you a letter responding to your Notice of Intent raising legal deficiencies within the Notice and invoking its right to reinspect the property. On April 4, 2025, the inspecting engineer conducted a follow-up study at the subject property. On May 7, 2025, the engineer completed a supplemental report of his findings, which was consistent with his initial analysis. He found that none of the damage to the windows, screens or interior were attributable to wind or hail on the reported date of loss. On May 15, 2025, Frontline sent another letter to your office confirming its investigation findings while maintaining its coverage determination. This correspondence provided details of Frontline’s investigation and the basis for its coverage determination. Frontline specifically denies any violation of Fla. Stat. Section 624.155(1)(b)(1) as Frontline conducted a thorough investigation and provided the basis for its coverage determination. Further, your office filed the subject CRN before ever reaching out to Frontline to discuss the claim or potential resolution. Frontline specifically denies any violation of Fla. Stat. Section 626.9541(1)(i)(2) as no material misrepresentation was made to the insureds. In fact, your CRN does not allege any misrepresentation made by Frontline during its thorough investigation of the claim. Frontline specifically denies any violation of Fla. Stat. Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) as it conducted a proper and thorough investigation of the claim, including having inspections completed by a qualified and independent field adjuster and engineer. Frontline reached its coverage determination based on the totality of its investigation. Frontline specifically denies any violation of Fla. Stat. Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) as no material misrepresentation was made to the insureds. In fact, your CRN does not allege any misrepresentation made by Frontline during its thorough investigation of the claim. Frontline specifically denies any violation of Fla. Stat. Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) as Frontline promptly communicated with the insureds and their representatives throughout the claim investigation process. Frontline specifically denies any violation of Fla. Stat. Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) as it conducted a proper and thorough investigation of the claim, including having inspections completed by a qualified and independent field adjuster and engineer. Frontline reached its coverage determination based on the totality of its investigation. Frontline specifically denies any violation of Fla. Stat. Section 627.70131(1)(a) as Frontline promptly communicated with the insureds and their representatives throughout the claim investigation process. Frontline specifically denies any violation of Fla. Stat. Section 627.70131(7)(a) as Frontline communicated with the insureds and their representatives regarding the information and documents needed to complete its investigation. As the necessary information came available, Frontline provided updates. Once all necessary information was obtained from the insures and their representatives, Frontline issued a detailed coverage determination based on the totality of its investigation, and provided the basis for its coverage determination. In light of Frontline’s investigation, coverage was properly denied for the subject claim, pursuant to the terms, conditions, exclusions, limits and deductible of the subject policy. As the claim was denied, Complainant’s claim is not covered for the same reasons set forth above and the relevant Coverage Determination Letters. Accordingly, Frontline denies any and all allegations of bad faith in connection with the claim submitted by Harold McCants. 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