Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     813655
Filing Accepted:  3/28/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
YANG   First Name   FAN LI AND YU CHEN
Street Address * 1532 CEDAR LAKE DR
City, State Zip * ORLANDO, FL 32824
Email Address * INSURED@MCDONALDBARNHILL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   YANG   First Name   FAN LI AND YU CHEN
Policy # * 0843916571 Claim #* 01000064368
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* GONTRUM First Name * RYAN Initial L
Street Address* 505 S. MAGNOLIA AVENUE
City, State Zip* TAMPA , FL 33606
Email Address * TAL@MCDONALDBARNHILL.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):* LANESSA LEGERE AND LARS FORSBERG
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.
 
626.9541(1)(i)(1) Attempting to settle claims on the basis of an application, when serving as a binder or intended to become a part of the policy, or any other material document which was altered without notice to, or knowledge or consent of, the insured.
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.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e) Failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and, as to partial coverage, the dollar amount or extent of coverage, or failing to provide a written statement that the claim is being investigated, upon the written request of the insured within 30 days after proof-of-loss statements have been completed.
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)(3)(g) Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h) Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary.
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).
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(j) Altering or amending an insurance adjuster’s report without: (I) Providing a detailed explanation as to why any change that has the effect of reducing the estimate of the loss was made; and (II) Including on the report or as an addendum to the report a detailed list of all changes made to the report and the identity of the person who ordered each change; or (III) Retaining all versions of the report, and including within each such version, for each change made within such version of the report, the identity of each person who made or ordered such change;
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

***ADDITIONAL STAtUTORY PROVISIONS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN VIOLATED AS FOLLOWS:*** §624.155(1)(a) Any person may bring a civil action against an insurer when such person is damaged: By the commission of any of the following acts by the insurer: 1. Section 626.9541(1)(i), (o), or (x); §624.155(1)(a) Any person may bring a civil action against an insurer when such person is damaged: By the commission of any of the following acts by the insurer: 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 towards its insured and with due regard for his interests; 2. Making claims payments to insures or beneficiaries not accompanied by a statement setting forth the coverage under which payments are being made; or 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. §624.155 (5) No punitive damages shall be awarded under this section unless the acts giving rise to the violation occur with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice and these acts are: a. Willful, wanton, and malicious; b. In reckless disregard for the rights of any insured; or c. In reckless disregard for the rights of a beneficiary under a life insurance contract; (8) The damages recoverable pursuant to this section shall include those damages which are a reasonably foreseeable result of a specified violation of this section by the authorized insurer and may include an award or judgment in an amount that exceeds the policy limits. §627.70131 Insurer’s duty to acknowledge communications regarding claims; investigation (1)(a) Upon an insurer’s receiving a communication with respect to a claim, the insurer shall, within 14 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 which reasonably prevent such acknowledgement. If the acknowledgement is not in writing, a notification indicating acknowledgement shall be made in the insurer’s claim file and dated. A communication made to or by an agent of an insurer with respect to a claim shall constitute communication to or by the insurer. (b) As used in this subsection, the term “agent” means any person to whom an insurer has granted authority or responsibility to receive or make such communications with respect to claims on behalf of the insurer. (c) This subsection shall not apply to claimants represented by counsel beyond those communications necessary to provide forms and instructions. (2) Such acknowledgement shall be responsive to the communication. If the communication constitutes a notification of a claim, unless the acknowledgement reasonably advises the claimant that the claim appears not to be covered by the insurer, the acknowledgement shall provide necessary claim forms, and instructions, including an appropriate telephone number. (3) Unless otherwise provided by the policy of insurance or by law, within 10 working days after an insurer receives proof of loss statements, the insurer shall begin such investigation as is reasonably necessary unless the failure to begin such investigation is caused by factors beyond the control of the insurer which reasonably prevent the commencement of such investigation. (4) For purposes of this section, the term “insurer” means any residential property insurer. (5) Within 90 days after an insurer receives notice of a property insurance claim from a policyholder, the insurer shall pay or deny such claim unless the failure to pay such claim is caused by factors beyond the control of the insurer which reasonably prevent such payment. Failure to comply with this subsection constitutes a violation of this code. ***Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation*** First Protective Insurance Company d.b.a. Frontline Insurance (Frontline) failed to adequately adjust and pay the claim covered under the subject insurance policy. Specifically, but not limited to, Frontline failed to properly apply the Loss Settlement and Loss Payment provisions of the policy. In addition to the policy sections specifically cited herein, any endorsements or changes to said sections are relevant to the Insured’s claim for civil remedy. There may be additional policy language relevant to this violation that may be discovered.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Yu Chen Yang and Fan Li (Pointe South) claim results from wind and water damage from Hurricane Ian which occurred on or about September 28, 2022, to their property located at 1532 Cedar Lake Dr., Orlando FL 32824. This property was insured under policy number 0843916571. The wind from the hurricane caused significant damage to the shingle roof and fascia. In turn, this damage resulted in rain intruding into the home where it damaged ceilings, floors, and other building materials throughout the dwelling. The claim was reported to First Protective Insurance Company, d.b.a. Frontline Insurance (“Frontline”). Frontline assigned claim number 01000064368 and named Lanessa Legere as the desk adjuster, and Lars Forsberg as the field adjuster for the claim. Mr. Forsberg prepared an estimate which severely under scoped the damage the property, including only ridge cap shingles and nothing at all for interior damage. This estimate totaled $563.04, which was unsurprisingly below the deductible, and Frontline made no payment for the claim The Insureds hired Stellar Public Adjusting Service (“Stellar”) to represent their interests in the claim. Stellar inspected the property prepared an estimate of the damage totaling $101,075.50. Stellar submitted this estimate, along with the supporting photos and documentation to Frontline, but there is no evidence that Frontline ever considered the documentation provided by Stellar or did anything to further adjust the claim. Instead, Frontline has subjected the Insureds to not one but two recorded statements, and when Stellar and the Insureds were finally forced to request appraisal to resolve the claim almost 23 months after the loss, Frontline rejected appraisal, asserting the request was premature. In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. Frontline has breached this duty in the adjustment of this loss by refusing to provide proper indemnity, failing to make payments it is aware are owed, unnecessarily delaying resolution of the claim, and failing to take into consideration documentation provided to them which would support further compensation. Frontline has failed to create and implement adequate guidelines for proper investigation of claims handling and for training and supervision of employees and representatives which have resulted in some of the statutory violations set forth above. Frontline charged Yu Chen Yang and Fan Li a substantial premium for these coverages but has refused to tender payment when under all circumstances it could have and should have done so had it acted fairly and honestly. Additionally, it appears this is done companywide. The Insureds have been forced to retain legal counsel to protect their interests. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, Frontline must: 1. Immediately tender all insurance monies due to the Insureds for the loss; 2. Act fairly and honestly towards the Insureds and with due regard for their interests in attempting to settle the claim; 3. Pay statutory interest on the amount of unpaid contractual damages from the date the claim was reported; 4. Cease and desist all present and future bad faith actions with regard to the Insureds’ claim; Failure to cure all defects during the 60-day safe harbor period may result in additional extra-contractual damages.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
etemkin@chartwelllaw.com 05-15-2025 May 15, 2025 VIA E-MAIL: tal@mcdonaldbarnhill.com Fan Li and Yu Chen Yang c/o Ryan L. Gontrum, Esq. 505 S. Magnolia Ave. Tampa, Florida 33606 and VIA E-FILING: Dept. of Financial Services Civil Remedy Notice Website Florida Department Of Financial Services Consumer Assistance/Civil Remedy Section Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0322 Re: Insurer: First Protective Insurance Company Insureds: Fan Li and Yu Chen Yang DFS Filing Number: 813655 Filing Accepted Date: March 28, 2025 Policy Number: 0843916571 Claim Number: 01000064368 To Whom It May Concern, This firm represents First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Insurance (hereinafter “FPIC”) in connection with a claim submitted on behalf of Fan Li and Yu Chen Yang (hereinafter “Insureds” or “Complainants”), a reported hurricane loss initially reported to have occurred on or about September 28, 2022. Subject to the foregoing, this correspondence shall serve as a formal response by FPIC to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation (“CRN”), filing number 813655, recently submitted by the Complainants and associated with Policy number 084391657 and claim number 01000064368. FPIC denies each and every allegation brought forth in the CRN and denies any wrongdoing in the handling of this matter. FPIC further objects to any and all deficiencies within the CRN, including, but not limited to, the failure to identify specific policy language at issue, the inclusion of conclusory allegations unsupported by sufficiently specific facts, and failure to specify a meaningful “cure.” Below we include a detailed factual history of the claim handling and actions by FPIC, which clearly reveals FPIC acted properly in responding to the claim and is in compliance with both its contractual and legal obligations. FPIC would further state that the Complainants’ CRN is defective as it is invalid pursuant to Florida Statute § 624.155(3)(f) and 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 60-day statutory period. See Lane v. Westfield Insurance Company, 862 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). However, the Complainants’ CRN is deficient as the limited facts and circumstances set forth therein are false, incomplete, and misleading. Additionally, the CRN includes a list of twelve (12) 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 facts addressing and supporting each of the alleged statutory violations against FPIC, but rather sets forth only stock, conclusory allegations of purported bad faith. For these reasons alone, the CRN is defective on its face. In light of the incomplete, misleading, and false allegations set forth in the CRN, FPIC 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. FPIC 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 underlying claim was made for alleged storm-related damage to the Insured’s property reported to have occurred on September 28, 2022. The claim was first reported to FPIC on September 29, 2022. The claim was reported as damage to the property due to Hurricane Ian. Immediately thereafter, FPIC provided a letter acknowledging the claim to the Insured, a Homeowner Claims Bill of Rights, a notice of the right to mediation, and a request for a sworn statement in proof of loss to be completed within 60 days. In addition, FPIC assigned a desk adjuster to handle the claim and an independent adjusting firm to assist with the investigation. The independent adjusting firm assigned an adjuster to inspect the property. On October 3, 2022, the independent adjuster inspected and photographed the loss in the presence of the Insured and wrote an estimate for the replacement of 56 linear feet of ridge cap – composition shingles in the amount of $563.04 RCV, which was below the Hurricane Deductible of $4,975.00. On October 24, 2022, FPIC issued a coverage determination letter and closed the claim. The parties had no meaningful contact from October 25, 2022, through June 28, 2022. On June 28, 2022, FPIC received a Public Adjuster Letter of Representation Stellar Public Adjusting Services with a contract signed on June 25, 2024. On July 11, 2024, FPIC issued a letter to Stellar Public Adjusting, attaching non-privileged documents, the estimate from FPIC and the coverage determination letter and acknowledging receipt of the Public Adjuster Letter of Representation dated June 28, 2022, from Stellar Public Adjusting Services with a contract signed on June 25, 2024. On July 30, 2024, the parties communicated by electronic mail. On August 19, 2024, the parties communicated by electronic mail. On August 21, 2024, the parties communicated by electronic mail. On September 5, 2024, FPIC issued a letter to the Complainants acknowledging receipt of an estimate received on August 21, 2024 (692 days following the reporting of the claim), from Stellar Public Adjusting Services in the amount of $121,983.82 RCV/$121,460.37 ACV along with the sworn proof of loss, photographs, and other documents. Due to the untimely receipt of the documents, FPIC reserved all rights under the policy. FPIC further requested the following additional information and documents from the Complainants and noted that the Sworn Proof of Loss was required to have been provided to us within 60 days after the date of loss. 1. Cause of Loss Documentation: Retain and provide evidence of the cause of loss and provide documentation as to the repair of the source of loss. 2. Photos: Clear photos of the damage(s) being claimed. 3. Field Adjuster Inspection: Frontline has requested a field adjuster inspection to assist in our evaluation of the claimed damages. 4. Recorded Statement: We are requesting your recorded statement by phone and will contact you to schedule same. 5. Rebuild Estimate/Invoices: Submit all related estimates, invoices, contracts, Assignments of Benefits, work authorizations, photos, and supporting documentation from all repair firms. Also, on September 5. 2024, FPIC acknowledged the demand for appraisal submitted on May 6, 2024, by the Tutwiler Public Adjusting, and noted that the demand was premature as the investigation of the claim was ongoing. On September 9, 2024, FPIC’s independent field adjuster (IA) conducted a second inspection on the insured residence and photographed the loss. The IA observed seven (7) torn shingle tabs on the roof. The insured declined an interior inspection and stated no interior damages were being claimed. On September 26, 2024, the parties communicated by electronic mail. On October 9, 2024, the parties communicated by electronic mail. On October 14, 2024, FPIC’s independent field adjuster returned to the loss to inspect the interior at the request of the Public Adjuster, who advised that interior damages were now being claimed. The Insured and the Public Adjuster were present for the inspection. No storm related interior damages were observed by the IA. On October 21, 2024, the parties communicated by electronic mail. On October 24, 2024, FPIC sent another letter to Stellar Public Adjusting Services and the Complainants which requested the following documents and information: 1. Cause of Loss Documentation: Retain and provide evidence of the cause of loss and provide documentation as to the repair of the source of loss. 2. Photos/Videos – Please provide photos of interior damages prior to the completion of repairs 3. Rebuild Estimates/Invoices: Provide receipts and/or invoices from contractors for completed repairs to the interior and dwelling roof. 4. Recorded Statement: We are requesting an additional recorded statement. Please reach out to the desk adjuster to schedule. 5. Proof of Loss: Provide your sworn proof of loss signed by all insureds for the claimed damages. On November 11, 2024, FPIC again requested an additional recorded statement from the Complainants. On November 15, 2024, the parties communicated by electronic mail. On November 18, 2024, the parties communicated by electronic mail. On November 24, 2024, the parties communicated by electronic mail. On January 15, 2025, FPIC issued a letter to the Complainants advising that the additional inspections of the insured property did not reveal any additional damage which was not previously noted at the initial inspection on October 3, 2022. FPIC further noted that no documentation had been provided that would alter the original coverage determination. FPIC stood on the initial coverage determination. On January 29, 2025, the parties communicated by email. On February 18, 2025, the Complainants and Frontline executed an Agreement for Submission to Appraisers. On February 24, 2025, the parties communicated by electronic correspondence. On March 28, 2025, the instant CRN was filed. During the investigation of this claim, FPIC has continued to evaluate claim information and proceed with the investigation of this matter accordingly and appropriately. ALLEGED REASON FOR NOTICE: Claim Denial: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. FPIC investigated the claim and found coverage for specific damage observed at the subject property. FPIC acted in accordance with its duties and obligations pursuant to the policy of insurance and acted as promptly as possible under the circumstances to advise the Complainants of the determination as to coverage for the alleged loss. Claim Delay: FPIC denies any delay on its part in the claims handling and process of the loss as is evident from the facts outlined above. FPIC promptly acknowledged the Complainants’ claim and timely initiated its investigation of the loss. FPIC acted in accordance with its duties and obligations pursuant to the policy of insurance and acted as promptly as possible under the circumstances to advise the Complainants of the determination as to coverage for the alleged loss. Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. As outlined above, the facts of this claim set forth herein evidence the proper administration of this claim in strict compliance with the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon FPIC. Unfair Trade Practice: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. The Complainants submit no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. At no time did FPIC, its agents, or its employees act improperly in the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. The facts show that FPIC acted promptly with respect to the investigation of the underlying claim. ALLEGED STATUTORY VIOLATIONS The Complainants allege multiple 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, FPIC denies each and every allegation of statutory violation individually as follows: 626.9541(1)(i)(1): FPIC denies any allegation pertaining to any attempt to settle claims on the basis of an application which was altered without notice to, or knowledge or consent, of the Complainants. The Complainants fail to submit any facts or circumstances in support of this alleged violation. FPIC asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligations set forth in the subject policy. 626.9541(1)(i)(2): Denied. Again, there is no showing by the insured to support this alleged violation. The insured has made blanket bad faith allegations without any support, as shown by this completely irrelevant and unsubstantiated allegation of misrepresentation. FPIC asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligations set forth in the subject insurance policy. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Denied. This allegation is without basis. FPIC has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of claims at all times. The aforementioned facts demonstrate that FPIC employed proper practices in the investigation and adjustment of this claim, and in strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Furthermore, the Complainants have submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b): Denied. Again, there is no showing by the Complainants to support this alleged violation. The Complainants have made blanket bad faith allegations without any support, as shown by this completely irrelevant and unsubstantiated allegation of misrepresentation. FPIC has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of claims at all times. The aforementioned facts demonstrate that FPIC employed proper 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. Again, there is no showing by the Complainants to support this alleged violation. As demonstrated above, FPIC systematically and frequently communicated with the Complainants and/or their representative(s) all pertinent information relating to the claim. FPIC asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. Furthermore, the Complainants have submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d): Denied. This allegation is without basis. As demonstrated above, FPIC continues to adjust the subject claim despite the Complainants’ continuous non-compliance with FPIC’s requests, the terms of the policy, and applicable Florida Statutes. The Complainants do not submit any facts or circumstances in support of this alleged violation. Furthermore, FPIC asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligations set forth in the subject policy. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e): Denied. As set forth in the factual summary provided above, FPIC sent correspondence acknowledging the claim immediately upon receiving the first notice of loss. The Complainants failed to submit a timely sworn statement in proof of loss pursuant to the terms and conditions of the policy, nor have the Complainants provided the requests for information and documentation noted in FPIC’s reservation of rights letters. The Complainants do not submit any facts or circumstances in support of this alleged violation. Moreover, FPIC asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligations set forth in the subject insurance policy. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f): Denied. As supported by the above claim facts, FPIC asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. As demonstrated above, FPIC promptly provided explanations as to all coverage decisions and settlement offers provided to the Insured. Moreover, the Complainants have submitted absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g): Denied. There is no showing by the Complainants to support this baseless allegation of failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of the claim. As shown in the factual summary above, FPIC issued reservation of rights letters on September 5, 2024, and October 24, 2024, which included requests for additional information and documentation. The Complainants do not submit any facts or circumstances in support of this alleged violation. Moreover, FPIC asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligations set forth in the subject insurance policy. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h): Denied. This allegation is without basis. As shown in the factual summary above, FPIC issued reservation of rights letters on September 5, 2024, and October 24, 2024, which included requests for additional information and documentation. The Complainants do not submit any facts or circumstances in support of this alleged violation. Moreover, FPIC asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligations set forth in the subject insurance policy. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(j): Denied. There is no showing by the Complainants to support this baseless allegation of altering or amending an insurance adjuster’s report. FPIC asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligations set forth in the subject insurance policy. The Complainants’ assertions to the contrary lack support. 626.9541(1)(i)(4): Denied. As demonstrated in the factual summary set forth above, FPIC sent correspondence acknowledging the claim immediately upon receiving the first notice of loss. Additionally, FPIC issued reservation of rights letters on September 5, 2024 and October 24, 2024, which included requests for additional information and documentation; however, the Complainants have not provided all of the requested information despite FPIC’s numerous requests. At all times throughout the handling and adjustment of this claim, FPIC acted in accordance with its duties and obligations pursuant to the policy of insurance and acted as promptly as possible under the circumstances to advise the Complainants of the determination of coverage for the alleged loss. At all times throughout the handling, adjustment and settlement of this claim, Frontline acted in strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. 624.155(1)(a)(1): Frontline denies any allegation pertaining to not attempting in good faith to settle claims, making claims payments not accompanied by a statement, or failing to promptly settle claims with regard to the subject claim. The Complainants fail to submit any facts or circumstances in support of this alleged violation. As demonstrated in the factual summary set forth above, Frontline continues to adjust the loss and damages claimed by the Complainants to the extent possible despite the Complainants’ continuous non-compliance with Frontline’s requests, the terms of the policy, and applicable Florida Statutes. The Complainants’ assertions to the contrary lack support. 627.70131: Denied. There is no showing by the Complainants to support this baseless allegation of failing to acknowledge communications with respect to the claim. As shown above, Frontline was completely forthcoming with the Complainants at all times material hereto. The Complainants do not submit any facts or circumstances in support of this alleged violation. Furthermore, Frontline asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligations set forth in the subject policy. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE INSURANCE POLICY FPIC asserts that the Complainants’ CRN completely fails to identify any specific policy language that is purportedly relevant to the alleged violations. Instead, the Complainants’ CRN merely states that Frontline failed to “properly apply the Loss Settlement and Loss Payment provisions of the Policy.” No specific Policy language is cited throughout the CRN. In effect, based on the statement included within in the subject CRN, the Complainants have not sufficiently provided notice of the Policy provisions alleged to have been violated. The Complainants fail to specifically reference any purportedly relevant Policy language contained therein. Given the foregoing, the Complainants are not excused from referencing the relevant Policy language, and this failure to do so constitutes direct and clear noncompliance with the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 624.155, rendering the CRN deficient on its face as to form and substance. Moreover, the Complainants fail to identify the respective relevance of any language to the litany of alleged violations. Accordingly, the Complainants failed to provide FPIC with the contemplated notice of the nature of the policy violations being asserted against it. Notwithstanding, FPIC 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 Complainants’ claim with diligence and at all times acted fairly in administration of this claim and treated its Insured with honesty and with due regard for her interests. All actions by FPIC were done in complete and strict compliance with the Policy. FPIC DENIES ALL ALLEGATIONS IN THE CRN FPIC hereby denies any and all allegations of bad faith by the Complainants, 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 FPIC. As stated above, 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. 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 Complainants failed to provide any specific and/or accurate facts or circumstances giving rise to the alleged violations in the CRN, and instead simply allege a litany of non-specific, incomplete, misleading, and boilerplate allegations against FPIC as alleged acts of bad faith. Moreover, there is not a single reference in the CRN to any specific policy language that is relevant to the allegations of bad faith. Failure to provide such specific reference to policy language is direct and clear noncompliance with the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 624.155, and renders the CRN deficient on its face, as to form and substance. 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. FPIC 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 sections by FPIC. By responding to the Civil Remedy Notice filed by Complainants, FPIC 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, FPIC 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, s/ Elizabeth Temkin Elizabeth Temkin, Esq. Michael 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