Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     813593
Filing Accepted:  3/28/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
GRIFFIN   First Name   MICHAEL & KATHRYN
Street Address * 7656 NOVARA CT
City, State Zip * NAPLES, FL 34114
Email Address * WITHHELD
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   GRIFFIN   First Name   MICHAEL & KATHRYN
Policy # * 8985760763 Claim #* 01000117507
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* WALLACE First Name * BLAKE Initial
Street Address* 8635 W. HILLSBOROUGH AVE., STE. 401
City, State Zip* TAMPA , FLORIDA 33615
Email Address * BLAKE@KLINGLAW.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):* SCOTT J. MONTGOMERY
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
Claim Delay
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Unfair Trade Practice
* 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)(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.
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.
626.9541(1)(i)(4) Failing to pay undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed under first-party property insurance policies within 60 days after an insurer receives notice of a residential property insurance claim, determines the amounts of partial or full benefits, and agrees to coverage, unless payment of the undisputed benefits is prevented by factors beyond the control of the insurer as defined in s. 627.70131(5).
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

The specific policy provisions the carrier violated are the loss payment provision, the loss settlement provision, and the coverage provisions. Specifically, the loss payment provision states “we will adjust all losses with you.” Yet, the carrier did not consult the homeowner in deciding who would investigate the cause or amount of damages, and what the ultimate payment should be. On March 14, 2025, a certified copy of the policy was requested by counsel of the insured. To date of the filing of this civil remedy notice the policy has not been provided by the carrier. This is in violation of F.S. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) as the carrier has failed to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. F.S. §627.70131(1)(a) provides that 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 you have any questions or concerns, please send all correspondence via email to Blake@klinglaw.com and Jorlyn@KlingLaw.com to ensure a prompt response. We ask that all correspondence be done via email rather than regular mail. Should you need to send something regular mail, please advise us prior to sending same via the emails above.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

March 28, 2025 Sent Via Portal First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Insurance Company RE: Insured : Michael Griffin and Kathryn Griffin (hereinafter, “Insured”) Policy # : 8985760763 Claim # : 01000117507 Property Address : 7656 Novara Ct., Naples, FL 34114 Persons most knowledgeable of facts giving rise to the Violations: Scott J. Montgomery Dear First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Insurance Company: Please find enclosed the civil remedy notice filed for the above referenced claim. This notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by Florida Statute §624.155 As discussed in greater detail in the notice, the carrier has not attempted in good faith to settle the claimant’s claim when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its claimant and with due regard for its interests. The carrier has done everything possible to delay the claim and refuses to provide any sort of status of the claim. Furthermore, the carrier is required to properly investigate and adjust claims and cannot place that burden upon the insured. This was made clear by the appellate court and the Florida Supreme Court in Allstate Indemnity Co. v. Ruiz, 899 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 2005) (“The Legislature has clearly chosen to impose on the insurance companies a duty to use good faith and fair dealing in processing and litigating the claims of their insured…”). The carrier was put on notice of the insured’s Hurricane Ian claim on September 23, 2024. Since the commencement of the claim the carrier has failed to timely communicate with the insured. It is obvious that the carrier is not attempting to pay for the clearly covered damages owed under the policy. Following receipt of the claim, the carrier assigned an unnamed field adjuster, who is not an engineer, to inspect the loss. On December 11, 2024, over seventy-nine (79) days after the reporting of the claim, the carrier made unilateral determinations that the damages to the property, would be excluded under the policy and therefore be denied. Pursuant to F.S. § 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 delay caused by Frontline’s investigation is in violation of F.S. §626.9541(1)(i)(4) as during this ninety-nine (79) day period Frontline did not dispute the claim but rather continually delayed its duty to promptly adjust the claim and settle it promptly. Furthermore, this undue continual delay and failure to inspect is in violation of F.S. §624.155(b)(1), as the delay was in direct disregard of the insured’s interests and F.S. §624.155(1)(b)(3), as the carrier has failed to promptly settle the claim. Moreover, in reaching those conclusions, Frontline failed to adopt and implement standards pursuant to F.S. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) for the proper investigation of claims. There was no explanation whatsoever as to how Frontline came to the determination of which items of damage were caused by excluded perils in violation of F.S. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f) as there was no provided 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. Furthermore, the carrier’s failure to assign a qualified and experienced engineer further violates F.S. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a). Moreover, as the carrier denied coverage without conducting a reasonable investigation based upon available information, the carrier violated F.S. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d). Florida Statute 627.70131(3)(e) requires the carrier to provide an estimate within 7 days after the estimate is generated by the insurer’s adjuster. However, Frontline has failed to provide the any copy of the estimate prepared by the field adjuster. The insurer must send the policyholder a copy of any detailed estimate of the amount of the loss within 7 days after the estimate is generated by an insurer’s adjuster. The insured has been compelled to obtain an independently adjusted estimate totaling in the amount of $69,324.72 that would be needed to repair the property back to its pre-loss condition. The insured has complied with all the carrier’s requests to date. The carrier has still refused to pay the fully covered amount owed under the policy, instead electing to stand by its unilateral determination of the loss. This is in violation of F.S. 624.155(1)(b)(1) and 624.155(1)(b)(3) as the carrier is clearly placing the company’s interests before the claimant’s interests and not attempting in good faith to settle claims. Furthermore, it is in violation of F.S. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) as the carrier failed to adopt and implement standards for a proper investigation of the claim. It is clear that the carrier is not treating the claimant with good faith claims conduct; failing to pay a claim clearly owed; not adjusting the claim and evaluating the loss properly, promptly and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to the claimant; failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims and placing the company’s interests before the claimant’s interests; not training, supervising or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made; refusing to pay the full amount owed to the insured despite the fact that the damages are covered under the policy; looking for ways to delay full recovery or any recovery to the insured; and refusing to provide coverage for the claimant’s loss in a timely manner. The Carrier’s actions are in violation of Florida Statutes §§ 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), 627.4137(1), and Fla. Stat. §627.70131. The actions taken by Frontline in the handling/adjustment of the insured’s claim were willful, wanton, malicious, and in reckless disregard for the rights of any insureds and occur with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice, and further are in violation of Florida Statutes §624.155 and F.S. §626.954. Indeed, when performing a search on the Florida Department of Financial Services website’s Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation page the results of searches of violations of the statutes referenced herein by the carrier returned the following results thereby indicating that the number of times they occur rise to the level of a general business practice, and warrant punitive damages: §624.155(1)(b)(1) = 5,575 §624.155(1)(b)(3) = 3,811 §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) = 5,395 §626.9541(1((i)(3)(c) = 3,834 §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) = 2,848 §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f) = 3,001 §626.9541(1)(i)(4) = 732 Based upon the above-referenced acts and omissions, the carrier has breached the insurance contract by failing to pay the amount due to the insured, by denying coverage which existed under the insurance contract with the insured in the instant dispute, by failing to adjust the loss with the insureds, and by failing to perform an adequate investigation. These are violations and breaches of the policy language cited above. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, the carrier must: 1) Pay the complete covered loss in the amount of $69,324.72 less any applicable policy deductible; 2) Pay the statutory interest on the amount of unpaid damages from the date of loss to the date payment is finally made; and 3) provide a certified copy of the policy and other documentation as requested within the insured’s counsel’s Letter of Representation. A copy of this letter and filed form submitted to the FDFS has been emailed to the carrier. The specific policy provisions the carrier violated are the loss payment provision, the loss settlement provision, and the coverage provisions. Specifically, the loss payment provision states “we will adjust all losses with you.” Yet, the carrier did not consult the homeowner in deciding who would investigate the cause or amount of damages, and what the ultimate payment should be. On March 14, 2025, a certified copy of the policy was requested by counsel of the insured. To date of the filing of this civil remedy notice the policy has not been provided by the carrier. This is in violation of F.S. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) as the carrier has failed to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. F.S. §627.70131(1)(a) provides that 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 you have any questions or concerns, please send all correspondence via email to Blake@klinglaw.com and Jorlyn@KlingLaw.com to ensure a prompt response. We ask that all correspondence be done via email rather than regular mail. Should you need to send something regular mail, please advise us prior to sending same via the emails above. Sincerely, Blake M. Wallace, Esq. Blake M. Wallace Attorney at Law Enclosed: Civil Remedy Filing
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
kferry@camboferry.com 05-14-2025 May 14, 2025 Via E-Mail and Upload to DFS Portal Michael Griffin and Kathryn Griffin c/o Blake Wallace, Esq. Kling Law P.A. 8635 W. Hillsborough Ave., Ste. 401 Tampa, Florida 33615 blake@klinglaw.com Re: Matter: Michael Griffin and Kathryn Griffin Date of Loss: Reported as September 28, 2022 Claim Number: 01000117507 Policy Number: 8985760763 DFS Filing Number: 813593 Dear Mr. Wallace, My firm represents First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Insurance (“Frontline”) with respect to the above matter. This letter is in response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation with filing number 813593 (“CRN”) you filed on behalf of Michael and Kathryn Griffin. The CRN 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 CRN is invalid because it does not contain all the information required by section 624.155. 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 states only, “the loss payment provision, the loss settlement provision, and the coverage provisions”, without providing any actual specific policy language allegedly violated or at issue in the subject Notice, this fails to meet the standard of specificity that is statutorily required. The only reference to any policy language is the allegation that, “the loss payment provision states “we will adjust all losses with you” under the mistaken belief that this means the carrier must consult with the Insured regarding who would investigate the subject claim. No additional information to support this mistaken belief is provided and the Notice lacks the necessary specificity as the policy language allegedly violated. See Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). Therefore, the CRN does not reference the specific policy language alleged to have been violated. 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 Notice is invalid because it conditions Frontline’s ability to “cure” by requiring Frontline to pay for things and do things that are not required under Talat. 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 demands payment of money that is not owed pursuant to the policy, such as interest. It is improper to demand such items as a cure for a civil remedy notice. 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) (discussing whether a demand of attorneys’ fees in a civil remedy notice is proper). Additionally, the CRN does not list Frontline’s address. See Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021); Pin-Pon Corp., 500 F. Supp. 3d 1336 (S.D. Fla. 2020). Moreover, the CRN does not list the Complainant’s e-mail address instead states only, “WITHHELD”. See Pin-Pon Corp., 500 F. Supp. 3d 1336 (S.D. Fla. 2020); Demase v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 7760 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022). In addition, the mere fact that other insureds have filed CRNs is not evidence that an insurer assessed those other claims in bad faith. It is merely evidence that other insureds were not satisfied with the insurer’s initial assessment of the claim. See Fox Haven of Foxfire Condo. IV Ass’n, Inc. v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2015 WL 667935 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 17, 2015); Shannon R. Ginn Const. Co. v. Reliance Ins. Co., 51 F. Supp. 2d 1347, 1354 (S.D. Fla. 1999) (holding that “unsworn complaints from cases in other jurisdictions” submitted “to show that other plaintiffs have alleged that Reliance conducts its claims practice unfairly” are “nothing more than conclusory allegations, and as such, are inadmissible hearsay” and must be disregarded by the court); Chicken Kitchen USA, LLC v. Maiden Specialty Ins. Co., 2016 WL 3982493, at *2 (S.D. Fla. July 22, 2016)(holding that “allegations in unsworn complaints filed in other cases cannot be used as evidence of an insurer’s general business practices for purposes of establishing a punitive damages claim”).” This deficiency applies to all allegations in the Purported Notice, including but not limited to Claim Denial, Claim Delay, Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer, and Unfair Trade Practice, supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), and 626.9541(1)(i)(4), Florida Statutes. Finally, the boilerplate CRN lacks sufficient specificity to provide notice of the alleged bad-faith conduct. The CRN lists seven (7) 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 seven (7) cited statutes. 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. 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., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100072, *7 (S.D. Fla., June 5, 2020); See Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). Again, in serving this response, Frontline reserves all rights under Florida law to be served with Civil Remedy Notice that is properly completed and statutorily compliant. 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 CRN also lacks merit. On September 23, 2024, the Insured reported a claim for alleged roof damage at the subject property, reportedly as a result of Hurricane Ian with a reported date of loss of September 28, 2022. Notably, the subject claim was reported nearly two (2) full years, and specifically seven hundred twenty-six (726) days, after the alleged date of loss. On the same day, Frontline sent claim acknowledgment correspondence to the Insured including the homeowner’s bill of rights and information regarding the right to attend mediation. On September 25, 2024, Frontline’s adjuster sent called the Insured and left a voicemail requesting a call back to discuss the claim. Frontline’s adjuster also sent an email to the Insured requesting the insured contact Frontline to discuss the claim. On September 25, 2024, Frontline, through an independent field adjuster, inspected the subject property. A representative from Green Coast Roofing was present at the inspection, however, the Insured was not present. During the inspection, the field adjuster spoke with the Insured via phone and the Insured advised he was out of state and that the roof had been inspected by Green Coast Roofing who advised him of alleged issues with the roof. The Insured further advised that his HOA advised him to file a claim and that they told him the roofing tiles were reportedly no longer available. Further, the Insured advised that there was no interior damage at the property. The Insured further advised that Green Coast Roofing had knocked on his door and that his wife had talked to them and arranged for their inspection. Further, the Insured advised that there were some roof repairs completed approximately four (4) years prior. An interior inspection was not performed as the Insured was not present and there was no one to allow access to the interior. The inspection revealed that the roof was a dual unit hip style roof with concrete tiles and a review of the permitting information revealed that the roof appeared to be original to when the property was constructed in 2005. Additionally, the inspection revealed corner cracked tiles inconsistent with wind damage and prior repairs to the roof. On September 24, 2024, Frontline’s adjuster spoke with the Insured regarding the claim. The Insured advised a roofer looked at his roof the prior Sunday and advised the Insured there was damage. The Insured confirmed there was no interior damage and that he had made repairs to the screen enclosure after Hurricane Ian. The Insured advised he did not report a claim as he did not believe he had damage. On September 25, 2024, Frontline received a contract and photo report from Green Coast Roofing. The contract was reportedly executed by the Insured on the same day, September 25, 2024. The photo report revealed that the photos were taken on September 21, 2024. The photos did not show any missing or displaced tiles on the roof and instead showed minor corner cracking, with the cracked pieces remaining in place, and prior repairs to the roof. On September 30, 2024, Frontline’s adjuster sent an email to the Insureds attaching a Reservation of Rights and Request for Information letter. The letter advised that it was questionable whether the Insureds had provided immediate notice of the loss as the claim was reported seven hundred twenty-six (726) days after the reported date of loss, whether the insureds had protected the property from further damage, whether the Insureds kept an accurate record of repair expenses, whether the Insureds cooperated in the investigation of the claim, whether the Insureds had shown the damaged property and the cause of loss and the condition it was in at the time of loss, and whether the Insureds timely submitted a Sworn Proof of Loss as required within sixty (60) days after the loss. The letter further requested the Insureds provide cause of loss documentation, photos and videos taken at the time of the loss and of the damages being claimed, that the Insureds submit to a recorded statement, submit any documents from any mitigation company related to the loss, submit any estimates, invoices, contracts, work authorizations, photos and supporting documentation from any contractor, and to submit a Sworn Proof of Loss. On September 30, 2024, Frontline’s adjuster received a call from the Insured who advised he received the reservation of rights and request for information letter and that he was still out of town but had completed the Sworn Proof of Loss and would submit the same after having it notarized. The Insured further advised that Green Coast Roofing would be submitting their estimate and photos. On September 30, 2024, Frontline received another copy of the contract and photo report from Green Coast Roofing as well as a “Roof Inspection Report” prepared by TSG Claims and Appraisal (“TSG”). Notably, the “Roof Inspection Report” prepared by TSG is not an engineering report and does not even indicate who authored the report. The report reflects that TSG allegedly inspected the property on September 27, 2024, almost exactly two years after the reported date of loss. The report pre-supposes that the roof at the subject property “suffered damage due to Hurricane Ian on 9/28/2022” and goes on to provide only limited discussion regarding the condition of the roof noting only that there were “signs of uplift”, and broken and cracked tiles. The report summarily concludes that the roof allegedly requires replacement. The report also contains internal inconsistencies with regard to the alleged windspeeds at the property and states that, “there were winds of 65mph at the subject location” and that, “this roof system was subjected to hurricane force winds of 75 mph”, this inconsistency further erodes any confidence that could be placed on the report. Further, the report states that TSG allegedly inspected the roof by, “walking the top surface of the roof”, yet the photographs dated September 27, 2024 and attached to the report are all taken from ground level, the remaining photographs, dated September 21, 2024, are the photos allegedly taken by Green Coast Roofing and which were previously provided by Green Coast Roofing in their photo report, this brings into question whether TSG even got on the roof at the subject property. The lack of any significant analysis supporting the presupposed conclusion that the roof sustained damage as a result of Hurricane Ian undermines the validity and veracity of the subject report. In addition, an estimate was provided with the report, again allegedly prepared by TSG Claims and Appraisal, while not listing an claim rep or estimator, totaling an alleged $69,324.72 and including replacement of gutters and a roof replacement at an alleged cost of $63,361.87, representing a per roofing square price of $2,465.44, far in excess of the reasonable and accepted market rate for a tile roof replacement. On October 2, 2024, Frontline’s adjuster sent an email to the Insured regarding availability to obtain the Insured’s recorded statement. On October 10, 2024, Frontline’s adjuster sent an email to the Insured with additional availability to obtain the Insured’s recorded statement. On October 11, 2024, Frontline’s adjuster spoke with the Insured and confirmed a recorded statement for October 18, 2024. On October 15, 2024, Frontline received the Insureds’ Sworn Proof of Loss executed on October 1, 2024. The Sworn Proof of Loss stated that the damages were reportedly first discovered on September 22, 2024 and that the claim was reported on September 23, 2024. The Sworn Proof of Loss further noted that the dwelling had been vacant for more than thirty (30) consecutive days prior to the date of loss. Further the Sworn Proof of Loss claimed that the repair cost was “none” and noted that five (5) cracked tiles had been previously repaired with tile adhesive approximately four (4) years ago. On October 16, 2024, Frontline’s adjuster sent an email to the Insured advising an independent engineer had been retained to inspect the property and determine the cause and origin of the damages. On October 18, 2024, Frontline’s adjuster sent an email to the Insured attaching a Sworn Proof of Loss rejection letter advising the Sworn Proof of Loss did not provide specifications of damage to the dwelling or the estimated amounts to repair or replace the reportedly damaged property. The letter further advised that Frontline’s evaluation of the claim was ongoing and that Frontline would continue to consider any new documents provided. On October 18, 2024, Frontline’s adjuster obtained the recorded statement of the Insureds during which the Insureds advised the subject property was not their primary residence and that they had owned the property since 2005. The Insureds further confirmed that Green Coast Roofing inspected the roof and advised the Insured that they reportedly observed cracked and lifted tiles on the roof. The Insureds also confirmed that there were no interior damages present and that they had repairs made to the roof approximately 4 or 5 years earlier consisting of adhesive repairs to a few cracked tiles. On October 28, 2024, the independent engineer retained by Frontline, Fulcrum Forensics, inspected the subject property. On October 31, 2024, Frontline’s adjuster spoke with the Insured and advised that Frontline was pending receipt of the engineer’s report. On November 5, 2024, Frontline received the engineer’s report from Fulcrum Forensics authored by Abel Crean, P.E. Based upon the inspection and investigation performed by Fulcrum Forensics, they concluded as follows: - Fulcrum concluded that the roof covering was not damaged as a result of wind forces. - Corner cracked tiles were caused by prolonged thermal induced stresses, which occurred over numerous daily and seasonal temperature cycles, gradually over the life of the roof. - Tile surface aberrations were manufacturing defects, caused by subsurface voids in the tile cement which occurred as part of the manufacturing process. - Tiles that exhibits slight movement are typical of mechanically secured roof tiles and are not considered wind damage. - Roof tile distress conditions persisted over the service life of the roof and occurred irrespective of the passing of Hurricane Ian. On November 15, 2024, Frontline’s adjuster sent an email to the Insured advising the claim had been reassigned to him for further handling and advising that the engineer report had been received and was being reviewed and that the adjuster would contact the Insured to discuss following completion of the review of the engineers report. On December 11, 2024, Frontline’s adjuster spoke with the Insured and advised that based upon Frontline’s investigation of the claim coverage was denied and that the formal coverage determination letter was being sent to the Insured and that the Insured should review the same if he disagrees with the coverage determination. On the same day, Frontline’s adjuster sent an email to the Insured attaching the denial letter which advised that the observed damages were not attributable to the passing of Hurricane Ian and were caused by deterioration due to thermal stress, manufacturing defects, and wear and tear and that there was no evidence of collateral damage to the exterior and no reported interior damages. The letter advised that the policy does not provide coverage for wear and tear, deterioration, or material defects and that, as such, the claim was denied. A copy of the Fulcrum Forensics engineer report was also provided to the Insured. On March 14, 2025, over three (3) months after Frontline issued its coverage determination, Frontline received a letter of representation from Kling Law advising they represented the Insureds with regard to the subject claim. On March 18, 2025, Frontline received a second Sworn Proof of Loss and a copy of the TSG estimate totaling $69,324.72 discussed above. The Sworn Proof of Loss was executed on March 17, 2025 and claimed an alleged $69,324.72 in damages. On March 25, 2025, Frontline’s adjuster sent an email to counsel for the Insureds attaching a Letter of Representation acknowledgment letter which acknowledged receipt of the March 14, 2025 Letter of Representation and attached copies of the claim correspondence, emails with the Insureds, engineer report, and denial letter. The letter further advised a copy of the policy was being provided under separate cover. A copy of the policy was then also sent to counsel for the Insureds as requested. On March 26, 2024, Frontline’s adjuster sent a Sworn Proof of Loss rejection letter to counsel for the Insureds advising the Sworn Proof of Loss did not comply with the requirements of the policy as it was not submitted within sixty (60) days of the loss, did not provide the description of the loss, did not state whether there was other insurance which may cover the loss, did not include supporting documentation, and was not properly completed. The letter further advised that coverage had been previously denied pursuant to Frontline’s December 11, 2024 correspondence and that, while coverage had been denied, Frontline would evaluate and consider any new information submitted in support of the claim and invited counsel for the Insureds to submit any additional information for review. On March 28, 2025, without providing any additional information or even submitting any further communications to Frontline, the subject Civil Remedy Notice (“CRN”) was filed. The CRN contains no specific information and instead presents unsupported and generalized allegations. Additionally, the CRN misrepresents facts regarding the claim. For example, the CRN alleges that, “the carrier has done everything possible to delay the claim and refuses to provide any sort of status of the claim”, this allegation is demonstrably false as is clear from the above, Frontline provided updates regarding the status of the claim and engaged in an efficient investigation of the claim. The CRN further alleges that, “since the commencement of the claim the carrier has failed to timely communicate with the insured”, again, this allegation is demonstrably false as is clear from the above, Frontline has, at all times, communicated timely with the Insureds regarding the subject claim. The CRN then alleges that Frontline did not timely render a claim determination and that during the adjustment of the claim Frontline, “did not dispute the claim but rather continually delayed its duty to promptly adjust the claim”, again, this allegation is demonstrably false and ignores the multiple correspondence sent to the Insureds regarding the status of the claim and Frontline’s investigation, including the Reservation of Rights letter and SPOL response letters. The CRN continues to baselessly allege that, “Frontline failed to adopt and implement standards… for the proper investigation of claims” and alleges, “there was no explanation whatsoever as to how Frontline came to the determination of which items of damage were caused by excluded perils” and that Frontline allegedly failed to assign a qualified and experienced engineer. All of these allegations are demonstrably false as is clear from the above, Frontline did, in fact, retain a qualified and experienced engineer to investigate the claim and did, in fact, provide a written explanation of the basis for denial of the claim and provided a copy of the engineer report to the Insured. The CRN also alleges that Frontline failed to provide an estimate of damages within seven (7) days after the estimate is generated, however, no such estimate was generate for this claim and as such, there was no estimate to provide. In addition, the CRN alleges the following statutory violations to which Frontline responds as follows: - Alleged violation of §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 failure and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests. o Frontline specifically denies any violation of the cited Statute. No specific information supporting this allegation is provided in the subject Notice. Notwithstanding, Frontline properly investigated the subject claim and rendered its claim determination based upon the totality of Frontline’s investigation. Frontline denied coverage for the subject claim pursuant to its investigation. Further, Frontline has not been presented with any new information for review or consideration. - Alleged violation of §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 o Frontline specifically denies any violation of the cited Statute. Frontline properly investigated the subject claim and rendered its claim determination based upon the totality of Frontline’s investigation. Frontline issued its claim determination timely and denied coverage for the subject claim. Further, Frontline has not been presented with any new information for review or consideration. - Alleged violation of §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) – Failing to adopt and implement standards for the property investigation of claims. o Frontline specifically denies any violation of the cited Statute. No specific information supporting this allegation is provided in the subject Notice. Notwithstanding, Frontline completed a thorough investigation of the subject claim including a field adjuster inspection, a thorough review of documentation provided by the Insureds, and an engineer inspection. - Alleged violation of §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c)– Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. o Frontline specifically denies any violation of the cited Statute. No specific information supporting this allegation is provided in the subject Notice. Notwithstanding, as is clear from the above, Frontline, at all times, timely and properly responded to any communications received with regard to the subject claim. - Alleged violation of §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) – Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information. o Frontline specifically denies any violation of the cited Statute. No specific information supporting this allegation is provided in the subject Notice. Notwithstanding, Frontline completed a thorough investigation of the subject claim including a field adjuster inspection, a thorough review of documentation provided by the Insureds, and an engineer inspection. Frontline properly investigated the subject claim and rendered its claim determination based upon the totality of Frontline’s investigation. Frontline issued its claim determination timely and denied coverage for the subject claim. Further, Frontline has not been presented with any new information for review or consideration. - Alleged violation of §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. o Frontline specifically denies any violation of the cited Statute. No specific information supporting this allegation is provided in the subject Notice. Notwithstanding. Frontline properly investigated the subject claim and rendered its claim determination based upon the totality of Frontline’s investigation. Frontline issued its claim determination timely and denied coverage for the subject claim including an explanation of the exclusions under the policy. Further, Frontline provided a copy of the engineer report upon which Frontline based its coverage determination as discussed above. - Alleged violation of §626.9541(1)(i)(4) – Failing to pay undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed under first-party property insurance policies within 60 days after an insurer receives notice of a residential property insurance claim, determines the amounts of partial or full benefits, and agrees to coverage, unless payment of the undisputed benefits is prevented by factors beyond the control of the insurer as defined in s. 627.70131(5). o Frontline specifically denies any violation of the cited Statute. Frontline properly investigated the subject claim and rendered its claim determination based upon the totality of Frontline’s investigation. Frontline issued its claim determination timely and denied coverage for the subject claim. Further, Frontline has not been presented with any new information for review or consideration. On May 1, 2025, without submitting any additional or new information, Frontline received a Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation with regard to the subject claim. On May 14, 2025, Frontline timely responded to the Notice of Intent and advised the Insureds that, pursuant to Frontline’s thorough investigation of the subject claim, coverage continued to be denied. In light of ’s investigation, coverage was properly denied for the subject claim, pursuant to the terms, conditions, exclusions, limits and deductible of the subject policy. Accordingly, Frontline denies any and all allegations of bad faith in connection with the claim submitted by Michael Griffin and Kathryn Griffin. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Warmest regards, Cambo Ferry, PLLC /s/ Kevin A. Pavlas, 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