Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     813040
Filing Accepted:  3/25/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
CAPTIVA HIDEAWAY CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.   First Name  
Street Address * PO BOX 850
City, State Zip * CAPTIVA, FL 33924
Email Address * GW3@FAST-RITE.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   CAPTIVA HIDEAWAY CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.   First Name  
Policy # * FIC1-000206270 Claim #* 050000000946
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* BOGGS First Name * AMY Initial
Street Address* 4554 CENTRAL AVE, SUITE L
City, State Zip* ST. PETERSBURG , FLORIDA 33711
Email Address * BOGGS-PLEADINGS@BOGGSLAWGROUP.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   FRONTLINE INSURANCE UNLIMITED COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10074
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* N/A
Type of Insurance * Commercial Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
Claim Denial
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Unfair Trade Practice
Other : Failure to Settle
Other : Undervalued Claim
Other : Underpaid Claim
* 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)(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.

A. Coverage We will pay for direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property at the premises described in the Declarations caused by or resulting from any Cov­ered Cause of Loss. 1. Covered Property a. Building, meaning the building or structure described in the Declarations, 3. Covered Causes of Loss See applicable Causes Of Loss Form as shown in the Declarations.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Captiva Hideaway Condominium Association, Inc. (the “Insured”) owned real property located at: 11400-11410 Old Lodge Lane, Captiva, Florida 33924 (the “Property”). On or about September 28, 2022, the Property suffered extensive damage due to Hurricane Ian. The Property was insured through Frontline Insurance Unlimited Company (“Frontline”) under Policy No. FIC1-000206270 (the “Policy”) at the time of the loss. The Insured had ample coverage under the Policy to cover the loss. The Insured made a claim with Frontline, who assigned claim No. 05000000946 and investigated the loss. Frontline accepted coverage for the loss but has failed and refused to pay the full amount due for the Insured’s covered loss. To date, Frontline has only tendered $1,184,146.06 for this covered loss. The Insured retained their own licensed public adjuster Kyle Herring, of Strategic Claims Consultants, for assistance with the claim and to investigate the loss. The Insured’s building damage is estimated by Mr. Herring at $1,864,378.87 ACV/ $1,866,273.18 RCV. The Insured’s damages are calculated as follows: $1,864,378.87 ACV for Building damage, less prior payments of $1,184,146.06, less the deductible of $60,000.00, for a total of $620,232.81 ACV due under building coverage. The $620,232.81 disparity between the Insured’s damages, and Frontline’s payment of the Insured’s claim constitutes a bad faith effort by Frontline to avoid payment for the Insured’s covered loss. Frontline hopes that the Insured will settle their claim for far less than the full benefits they are owed under the Policy. In sum, Frontline has vastly underpaid the Insured’s claim and has refused to tender full benefits that the Insured is due for this covered loss under the Policy. In failing to make payment of benefits due, Frontline has also failed to investigate and settle the claim in good faith, underpaid the claim without conducting a proper investigation, and misrepresented pertinent facts pertaining to the Policy coverage. On information and belief, Frontline has engaged in the following behaviors with such frequency that the conduct is a pattern and practice of Frontline: delay, improper adjustment of claims, under-valuation of claims, and failure to communicate with insureds. Frontline and the Insured are parties to a valid and binding contract of insurance. This contract of insurance requires Frontline to provide benefits to the Insured in the case of a covered loss to the Property. The Insured suffered a covered loss under the Policy and has otherwise suffered damage that is not excluded under the Policy. All conditions precedent to obtaining coverage for the loss have been complied with, met, or waived. Frontline has failed and refused to pay full benefits due for the covered loss. The Insured has been damaged by Frontline’s breach of contract. This notice is given to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by Florida Statute, including all bad faith/extra-contractual and punitive damages, should Frontline fail to cure the violations set forth in this notice within the given cure period. To cure the defects outlined in this civil remedy notice Frontline must: (1) Provide full payment of benefits for the Insured’s claim; and (2) Tender interest for benefits due at the statutory rate dating back to reporting of the loss per Fla. Stat. §627.70131.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
mkranzler@chartwelllaw.com 05-06-2025 May 6, 2025 Captiva Hideaway Condominium Association, Inc. VIA E-MAIL TO: boggs-pleadings@boggslawgroup.com and Florida Department Of Financial Services Consumer Assistance/Civil Remedy Section Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0322 VIA E-FILING: Dept. of Financial Services Civil Remedy Notice Website RE: CAPTIVA HIDEAWAY CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. Date of Filing: March 25, 2025 Claim No.: 050000000946 CRN Filing No.: 813040 Policy No.: FIC1-000206270 Address: 11400-11410 Old Lodge Lane, Captiva, FL 33924 To Whom It May Concern: This office has been retained by Frontline Insurance Unlimited Company (“Frontline”) in connection with the above referenced claim. Please accept the following as Frontline’s Response to the Civil Remedy Notice (“CRN” or “Notice”) filed on March 25, 2025 on behalf of Captiva Hideaway Condominium Association, Inc.. Frontline denies each and every allegation brought forth in the CRN and denies any wrongdoing in the handling of this matter. Below we include a detailed factual history of the claim handling and actions by Frontline, which clearly reveals Frontline acted properly in responding to the claim and is in compliance with both its contractual and legal obligations. Frontline further states the Insured’s CRN is defective as it fails to comply with the strict governing requirements contained within Florida Statute Section 624.155. Namely, the statute requires that a CRN shall “state with specificity . . . [t]he facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.” Fla. Stat. § 624.155(3)(b)2. Under Florida law, a civil remedy notice must state the facts and circumstances that give rise to an alleged violation with such specificity sufficient to allow an insurer to cure any alleged violation within the sixty (60) day statutory period. See Lane v. Westfield Insurance Company, 862 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). For this reason, the CRN is deficient on its face and should be rejected. The Insured’s CRN is deficient as the limited facts and circumstances set forth therein are false, incomplete, and misleading, as well as insufficient to establish a violation of any statute or policy provision. Additionally, the CRN includes a list of four (4) statutory provisions alleged to have been violated. The referenced statutes, however, do not appear to be pertinent to the subject claim, and the CRN fails to specify each statute’s relative applicability to same. Further, the CRN does not contain specific facts addressing and supporting each alleged statutory violation against Frontline, but rather sets forth only stock, conclusory allegations of purported bad faith, and further makes certain statements of “fact” which are intentionally misleading at best. For these reasons alone, the CRN is defective on its face. In light of the incorrect, deficient, incomplete, misleading, and false allegations set forth in the CRN, Frontline hereby provides the Department of Financial Services with the following facts of the claim that, in and of themselves, disprove all of the allegations brought forth in the CRN. Frontline hereby asserts that all actions taken in the handling of this claim were done so in good faith for the purpose of fair and timely disposition of this matter. CLAIM FACTS The insured property is a condominium building located at 11400-11410 and 11406 Old Lodge Lane, Captiva, FL 33924. Frontline issued a property insurance policy bearing policy number FIC1-000206270 to the Insured, Captiva Hideaway Condominium Association, Inc., with effective dates of April 11, 2022 through April 11, 2023. This claim was first reported to Frontline on September 29, 2022, as damages having occurred on or around September 28, 2022 as a result of Hurricane Ian. Frontline promptly acknowledged the claim and commenced its investigation. Frontline investigated the loss with an Independent Adjuster and Building Consultant, and afforded Dwelling coverage in the total amount of $1,184,146.06, plus an additional $480,669.31 for water mitigation. The Insured’s Public Adjuster, conversely, estimated the Dwelling damages at $1,278,855.76 but when Frontline attempted to negotiate with the Public Adjuster to find a mutually-agreeable resolution, the Public Adjuster unilaterally increased his estimate to $1,804,378.87, and advised that an attorney was encouraging their own retention to initiate litigation if Frontline did not settle the claim. With respect to the remaining water mitigation dispute, the Public Adjuster demanded an additional $50,000 but admitted that he has no documentation to support it. As for the damaged flat roofs, Frontline paid more than what the Public Adjuster was demanding. Turning to the damaged metal roofs, it is admitted that the Public Adjuster’s estimate seeks upgraded materials, but the Insured’s Policy does not afford coverage for upgrades. Additionally, numerous areas of claimed damage were actually the result of non-covered losses, such as long-term damage, flood, or storm surge, all of which were ignored by the Public Adjuster in preparing his estimates. Indeed, the Insured’s own engineering report supports some of these findings of non-covered damages. And some areas of the Public Adjuster’s claimed disputes, such as lanai flooring, were originally claimed to have engineering support, only for the Public Adjuster to later retract that statement and admit that he actually did not have such information.. Throughout Frontline’s efforts to negotiate this matter, the Insured’s Public Adjuster would claim to have extensive documents in his possession supporting his position, only to refuse to provide same to Frontline and continue to threaten litigation through attorneys who were encouraging their own retention. In fact, the Public Adjuster even rejected requests to mediate the dispute and address these various issues. The subject Policy places obligations on the Insured to cooperate with Frontline’s inspection, and that obligation extends to the Insured’s representatives and/or agents, which includes the Public Adjuster. It is clear that the Public Adjuster here, acting on behalf of the Insureds, has not sufficiently cooperated with Frontline’s investigation and may be actively endangering any further coverage on the part of the Insured. As demonstrated by the narrative above, Frontline engaged, and continues to engage, in a timely, thorough, and good faith evaluation of this claim. As shown, Frontline has at all times fully complied with all obligations imposed by the subject Policy and Florida law. As such, Frontline acted diligently in the handling of the underlying claim. Frontline thoroughly investigated the claim and informed the Insured of its investigation consistently and of its coverage determinations. Frontline asserts that it acted diligently and in good faith in the evaluation and handling of the underlying claim and complied at all times with the provisions of the Policy and applicable Florida Statutes. ALLEGED REASON FOR NOTICE: Claim Delay: Frontline denies any delay in the claims handling and process of the loss as evident from the facts outlined above. Frontline promptly acknowledged the claim and timely initiated its investigation of the loss. Frontline routinely communicated with the Insured’s representatives, advising of its efforts to evaluate the claim, provided notice of all actions necessary to evaluate the loss and promptly notified the Insured of its coverage determination. Conversely, the Insured’s Public Adjuster, acting as their representative, repeatedly refused to provide substantiation for additional damages he claimed to have in his possession, even as he unilaterally increased his valuation of the loss by roughly 50%, using the threat of litigation to try to leverage resolution. Frontline requested supporting documentation but the Public Adjuster refused to provide same. Any allegation of claim delay is wholly without merit, unless the Insured is pointing to its own representatives. Frontline acted in accordance with its duties and obligations pursuant to the policy of insurance. Claim Denial: Frontline denies any improper claim denial as evidenced from the facts outlined above. Frontline has afforded extensive coverage for this loss, only for the Insured’s Public Adjuster, who stands to profit from the coverage in this matter, to unilaterally increase his estimate by roughly 50% and refuse to provide sufficient substantiation for same. Frontline has provided an explicit accounting of what additional information is needed to support such an increased valuation and the Public Adjuster, acting on behalf of the Insured, has chosen not to provide same. Frontline acted in accordance with its duties and obligations pursuant to the policy of insurance. Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer: Frontline denies any allegation of unsatisfactory settlement offer. Frontline has afforded extensive coverage for this loss, only for the Insured’s Public Adjuster, who stands to profit from the coverage in this matter, to unilaterally increase his estimate by roughly 50% and refuse to provide sufficient substantiation for same. Frontline has provided an explicit accounting of what additional information is needed to support such an increased valuation and the Public Adjuster, acting on behalf of the Insured, has chosen not to provide same. Frontline acted in accordance with its duties and obligations pursuant to the policy of insurance. Unfair Trade Practice: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. The Insured submit no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. At no time did Frontline, its agents, or its employees employ any unfair business practice during the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. Failure to Settle: Denied. Frontline has afforded extensive coverage for this loss, only for the Insured’s Public Adjuster, who stands to profit from the coverage in this matter, to unilaterally increase his estimate by roughly 50% and refuse to provide sufficient substantiation for same. Frontline has provided an explicit accounting of what additional information is needed to support such an increased valuation and the Public Adjuster, acting on behalf of the Insured, has chosen not to provide same. Frontline acted in accordance with its duties and obligations pursuant to the policy of insurance. Undervalued Claim: Denied. Frontline has afforded extensive coverage for this loss, only for the Insured’s Public Adjuster, who stands to profit from the coverage in this matter, to unilaterally increase his estimate by roughly 50% and refuse to provide sufficient substantiation for same. Frontline has provided an explicit accounting of what additional information is needed to support such an increased valuation and the Public Adjuster, acting on behalf of the Insured, has chosen not to provide same. Frontline acted in accordance with its duties and obligations pursuant to the policy of insurance. Underpaid Claim: Denied. Frontline has afforded extensive coverage for this loss, only for the Insured’s Public Adjuster, who stands to profit from the coverage in this matter, to unilaterally increase his estimate by roughly 50% and refuse to provide sufficient substantiation for same. Frontline has provided an explicit accounting of what additional information is needed to support such an increased valuation and the Public Adjuster, acting on behalf of the Insured, has chosen not to provide same. Frontline acted in accordance with its duties and obligations pursuant to the policy of insurance. ALLEGED STATUTORY VIOLATIONS The Insured alleges six (6) statutory violations in the CRN, however, no specific facts or circumstances are provided to support these allegations. The CRN is simply a recitation of general, stock allegations of bad faith conduct, along with a list of statutory violations that are not specifically alleged or described. Notwithstanding, Frontline denies each and every allegation of statutory violation individually as follows: 624.155(1)(b)(1): Denied. Frontline has not failed to attempt to settle this claim in good faith and has always acted fairly and honestly towards the Insured. As shown in the above factual summary, the conduct of Frontline following its receipt of the first notice of the loss has complied with all aspects of Florida law. Frontline timely inspected the loss and informed the Insured of its coverage determination. The Insured has submitted no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation, but rather their Public Adjuster, purporting to act on its behalf, has refused to provide the substantiation which he claims to possess and which may tend to support or refute the Public Adjuster’s demand for additional monies. Frontline asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligation set forth in the subject insurance policy. 626.9541(1)(b)(3): Denied. Frontline has afforded extensive coverage for this loss and specifically advised the Insureds’ Public Adjuster of the specific additional information necessary to justify further coverage. The Public Adjuster, acting on behalf of the Insured, has refused to do so, potentially jeopardizing any further coverage for the Insured. Frontline asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligation set forth in the subject insurance policy. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Denied. This allegation is without basis. The Insured submits no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. Frontline has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of claims at all times. The aforementioned facts demonstrate that Frontline employed proper and customary claims practices in the investigation and adjustment of this claim, and in strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b): Denied. This allegation is without basis. The Insured submits no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. Frontline has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of claims at all times. The aforementioned facts demonstrate that Frontline employed proper and customary claims practices in the investigation and adjustment of this claim, and in strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c): Denied. As shown in the detailed factual summary above, Frontline was prompt and forthcoming with the Insured at all times material hereto, properly advising the Insured of the facts, observations, and Policy language at issue. Frontline asserts its full and strict compliance with the contractual and statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligation set forth in the subject insurance Policy. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d): Denied. As shown in the detailed factual summary above, Frontline was prompt and forthcoming with the Insured at all times material hereto, properly advising the Insured of the facts, observations, and Policy language at issue. Furthermore, this claim was not denied. Frontline has afforded extensive coverage for this loss and specifically advised the Insureds’ Public Adjuster of the specific additional information necessary to justify further coverage. The Public Adjuster, acting on behalf of the Insured, has refused to do so, potentially jeopardizing any further coverage for the Insured. Frontline asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligation set forth in the subject insurance policy. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE INSURANCE POLICY The Insured’s CRN references multiple broad Policy provisions which it alleges to have been violated, without any explanation as to their applicability to this dispute. This failure to provide specific reference to policy language and its applicability to the dispute is a direct and clear noncompliance with the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 624.155, rendering the CRN deficient on its face as to form and substance. Notwithstanding, Frontline denies violating any provision or duties set forth in the Policy and further asserts compliance with the Policy and all of its provisions and endorsements. FPIC handled the Insured’s claim with diligence and at all times acted fairly in the administration of this claim and treated the Insured with honesty and with due regard for their interests. All actions by Frontline were done in complete and strict compliance with the Policy. FRONTLINE DENIES ALL ALLEGATIONS IN THE CRN Frontline hereby denies any and all allegations of bad faith by the Insured, and states that it has, at all times material, handled and adjusted the Insured’s claim with utmost good faith. Any and all allegations of bad faith contained within the CRN are expressly rejected by Frontline. As stated above, the CRN is deficient as the CRN itself contains a recitation of general, stock allegations of bad faith conduct, along with four (4) statutory provisions that are not specifically alleged or described. The CRN is therefore non-compliant with Florida Statute Section 624.155(3), which requires that a civil remedy notice of insurer violation “state with specificity”, inter alia, the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation and the “specific” language of the subject insurance policy that is relevant to any alleged violation(s). The Insured wholly fail to provide any specific facts or circumstances giving rise to the alleged violations in the CRN, and instead simply allege a litany of non-specific, boilerplate allegations against Frontline as purported acts of bad faith. Accordingly, the CRN does not provide the contemplated and mandated notice of alleged bad faith that is required as a condition precedent to any civil claim for bad faith pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 624.155. For these reasons, the CRN is denied and rejected. Additionally, as described in detail above, the facts alleged in the CRN are contrary to the actual facts underlying the subject claim. Frontline further denies any and all other allegations not specifically addressed in this response related to the above-referenced Civil Remedy Notice. There has been no violation of the referenced statutory provisions by Frontline. By responding to the Civil Remedy Notice filed by the Insured, Frontline neither waives nor abandons but expressly reserves any and all rights, claims and defenses it has or may have under the terms and conditions of the Policy and applicable Florida law. Herein, Frontline has attempted to fully and adequately respond to the allegations alleged in the CRN. Should the Florida Department of Financial Services have any questions or further inquiry with respect to this matter, please contact the undersigned. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, CHARTWELL LAW, LLP. ______________________________ Michael J. Kranzler, Esq. cc: Florida Department of Financial Services
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