Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     813942
Filing Accepted:  3/31/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
AND SANDRA ROMAN   First Name   FRANCISCO VAZQUEZ-DAVILA
Street Address * 290 REGAL DOWNS CIRCLE
City, State Zip * WINTER GARDEN, FL 34787
Email Address * INTAKE2@THEKRFIRM.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   AND SANDRA ROMAN   First Name   FRANCISCO VAZQUEZ-DAVILA
Policy # * 8896508691 Claim #* 01000111083
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* KADIR First Name * ALI Initial A.
Street Address* 986 DOUGLAS AVE, STE. 102
City, State Zip* ALTAMONTE SPRINGS , FL 32714
Email Address * INTAKE2@THEKRFIRM.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):* CHRISTOPHER T. MCGILL, MICHAEL K. FREMPONG PE LEED AP BD+C, OMEGA FORENSIC ENGINEERING INC., AND ALL FRONTLINE CLAIMS ADJUSTERS, EMPLOYEES, REPRESENTATIVES, AGENTS, VENDORS, AND/OR ENGINEERS WHO HANDLED THE CLAIM.
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
Claim Delay
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Unfair Trade Practice
Other : Misrepresentation
* 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.
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.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

“SECTION I – PERILS INSURED AGAINST A. Coverage A – Dwelling And Coverage B – Other Structures 1. We insure against direct physical loss to property described in Coverages A and B. . . . . B. Coverage C – Personal Property We insure for direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage C caused by any of the following perils unless the loss is excluded in Section I – Exclusions. . . . . 2. Windstorm Or Hail.”
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Francisco Vazquez-Davila and Sandra Roman (“the Insureds”) are homeowner insureds with an all-risks policy issued by First Protective Insurance Company dba Frontline Insurance (“Frontline”). The insured property or home is located at 290 Regal Downs Circle, Winter Garden, Florida 34787. In February of 2024, a hail and windstorm caused extensive damage to the Insureds’ home. The Insureds timely reported an insurance claim for this damage to Frontline and fully cooperated with all requests for inspections. They provided all requested documentation, if any, and complied with all post loss policy conditions. An estimate for repair of all damages with respect to the Insureds’ claim was prepared on their behalf for $52,288.59 and was submitted to Frontline. After reporting the claim, Frontline retained an unqualified and biased field adjuster who has a financial relationship with Frontline. This field adjuster inspected the Insureds’ home in an apparent effort to minimize Frontline’s losses instead of adjusting the claim in good faith in due regard for the Insureds’ interests. Frontline also hired a biased Mechanical Engineer, Michael K. Frempong, PE, LEED AP BD+C of Omega Forensic Engineering, Inc. (“Omega”), who has a financial relationship with Frontline. Like the field adjuster, this engineer’s goal was to provide incorrect and erroneous findings; again in an apparent effort to minimize Frontline’s losses to the detriment of the Insureds. Despite Omega’s admission to finding hail-related damage, it incredulously found that the damage did not occur on the reported date of loss. Based on these findings, Frontline completely denied coverage for the Insureds’ claim. Due to such bad faith claim handling, the Insureds have been unable to permanently repair their home. Based on these facts, it is clear Frontline unreasonably denied coverage for the Insureds’ claim in bad faith. It denied coverage for the claim without conducting a reasonable investigation based upon the available information. It misrepresented pertinent policy provisions and facts and did not act fairly and honestly with the Insureds in due regard for their interests. Frontline also delayed the claim and failed to timely respond to communications. It further failed to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of this claim. This has become a common business practice of Frontline. Florida Statute § 624.02 defines insurance as a contract whereby one undertakes to indemnify another or pay or allow a specified amount or a determinable benefit based on determinable contingencies. Inherent is the fact that payment must be made timely and promptly so that insureds may mitigate their damages and be put back into the position they were in prior to the loss as quickly as possible. Frontline has breached this duty by refusing to properly and timely adjust the loss. As a result, the Insureds will have no choice but to retain the undersigned counsel to file a lawsuit against Frontline. Frontline has more than enough information and is still refusing to accept coverage for this claim. This continued and repeated reckless claim delay and denial of coverage will result in a significant punitive damage award if a bad faith lawsuit is filed. Frontline can avoid a lawsuit for bad faith by immediately accepting full coverage under the subject insurance policy for this claim and by paying the Insureds based on their $52,288.59 estimate.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
tsalehi@salehiboyer.com 05-22-2025 VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION: civilremedy@myfloridacfo.com Florida Department of Insurance Civil Remedy Section 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Re: Complainant: Francisco Vazquez-Davila and Sandra Roman Policyholders: Francisco Vazquez-Davila and Sandra Roman Filer: Ali A. Kadir, Esq. Claim #: 01000111083 Policy #: 8896508691 Date of Loss: September 28, 2022 CRN Filing No.: 813942 CRN Filing Date: March 31, 2025 To Whom It May Concern at The Department of Financial Services: With this correspondence, First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Insurance (“FRONTLINE”) responds to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (“CRN”) filed by Ali A. Kadir, Esq. on behalf of Francisco Vazquez-Davila and Sandra Roman (the “Complainants” or “Claimants”). After reviewing the CRN, FRONTLINE conducted a thorough review of its handling of the Complainant’s claim. FRONTLINE denies that it has violated any of the statutes referenced in the CRN. At all times, FRONTLINE has acted in good faith, fairly and honestly toward the Complainant and with due regard for their interest. FRONTLINE also argues that the CRN utterly fails to describe any of the alleged violations and fails to provide any information such as facts and circumstances which would allow FRONTLINE to identify and correct the alleged violations. The Complainant alleges violations of the following statutory provisions: 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. FRONTLINE denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 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. FRONTLINE denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. FRONTLINE denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b): Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. FRONTLINE denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c): Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. FRONTLINE denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d): Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigation based upon available information. FRONTLINE denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 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. FRONTLINE denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 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. FRONTLINE denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g): Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim. FRONTLINE denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h): Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary. FRONTLINE denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. FRONTLINE specifically denies each and every one of the Complainant’s allegations that it violated any of the above referenced statutes. In addition to the allegations specifically denied above, FRONTLINE generally denies all allegations presented in this CRN as FRONTLINE has not violated any statute or rule. CRN MUST BE DISMISSED The CRN must be dismissed first and foremost because the Complainants failed to allege specific, actual facts in support of any of their statutory allegations. Next, because the Civil Remedy Notice fails to allege specific facts and/or circumstances in support of its allegations, FRONTLINE is unable to properly respond; as such, the CRN should be rejected and returned. The CRN is completely devoid of any factual allegations relating to the monetary amount of any claims. See Rousso v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., No. 10-cv-20554, 2010 WL 7367059, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 13, 2010) (“In this case, the Plaintiffs do not explain how or identify which claims or suits the Defendant responded to in a manner that was contrary to good faith, unfair, or dishonest.”). This glaring deficiency fails to apprise FRONTLINE of the nature of any purported violation and cannot satisfy the statutory standard of “pleading the facts and circumstances” giving rise to the violation with specificity. The CRN first addresses Section 624.155(1)(b)(1), Florida Statutes, which addresses an insurer’s refusal to attempt to settle in good faith. FRONTLINE denies the allegations contained within the Complainants’ CRN that alleges FRONTLINE refused to attempt to settle the claim in good faith. Moreover, as to Section 624.155(1)(b)(3), Florida Statutes, the CRN is completely devoid of any facts to support that FRONTLINE failed to promptly settle a claim under one portion of the policy in order to influence settlement under other portions of the policy. Regarding the alleged violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), Florida Statutes, the Purported Notice fails to describe any acts of FRONTLINE which would provide that there was a failure to adopt and implement standards for proper investigation. The general defects specified above again apply with particularity here because the Purported Notice's failure to describe the facts or circumstances of the claim precludes FRONTLINE from evaluating what error, if any, allegedly occurred during the claim process. The Complainant cannot possibly support the positions that there was a failure to adopt and implement standards because the claim was fully paid pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Policy and the Purported Notice fails to allege any facts and circumstances indicating FRONTLINE’s investigation was in some way defective. Regarding the alleged violations of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), Florida Statutes, which accuses FRONTLINE of making material misrepresentations, the CRN failed to provide any facts supporting this contention, and has prevented FRONTLINE from being able to properly address such supposed facts in its response. However, as to the allegations being made, FRONTLINE reiterates that they are denied. As to the alleged violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), Florida Statutes, FRONTLINE denies the allegations regarding the alleged facts contained in the CRN surrounding the allegation that FRONTLINE failed to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. Furthermore, regarding the alleged violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), Florida Statutes, the CRN does not describe any standards applicable to denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information, much less the facts and circumstances giving rise to the contention that FRONTLINE denied the subject claim without first conducting a reasonable investigation. Additionally, as to Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e), Florida Statutes, the CRN does not describe any standards applicable to the purported “claim” advanced by the Complainant, much less the facts and circumstances giving rise to the contention that FRONTLINE failed to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the Complainant 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. Moreover, as to the alleged violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f) Florida Statutes, relating to the alleged failure 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, the CRN does not describe any facts or circumstances giving rise to the contention that FRONTLINE failed to comply with the referenced statute. As to the alleged violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)((3)(g) Florida Statutes, the CRN fails to describe any facts to support the allegation that FRONTLINE failed to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim. Finally, as to the alleged violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h) Florida Statutes, the CRN fails to describe any facts to support the allegation that FRONTLINE failed to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary. Additionally, contrary to the requirement to “describe the facts and circumstances giving rise to the insurer’s violation as you understand them at this time,” the purpose of which is “to enable the insurer to investigate and resolve [the] claim,” the CRN itself only provides unsupported, conclusory, and incorrect allegations with no basis in fact or circumstance. Aside from the fact that the allegations are devoid of sufficient facts, the tenor and inferences of the allegations are wholly without merit and FRONTLINE denies each and every one. The allegations set forth in the CRN are denied as they are mere conclusory allegations unsupported by facts, devoid of logic and clearly intended solely to tarnish FRONTLINE’s name and reputation. FRONTLINE, at all times, acted fairly, honestly and in good faith in its dealings with the Complainant. FRONTLINE at no time misrepresented any pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions. FRONTLINE conducted a reasonable and prudent investigation of the claim and acted upon all communications from the Complainant. Finally, FRONTLINE promptly and appropriately communicated with the Complainant and provided explanations for the actions and decisions that were made. FRONTLINE retained an independent field adjuster who conducted an inspection of the subject property to investigate the Complainant’s claim. As it relates to the facts of the claim, FRONTLINE received notice of the subject loss on April 1, 2024, alleged to have occurred on February 4, 2024. Specifically, it was alleged that the dwelling had sustained damage as a result of hail. Promptly thereafter, on April 3, 2024, an adjuster went to the subject property to conduct an inspection on behalf of FRONTLINE. On June 21, 2024, in furtherance of its investigation, FRONTLINE had an engineer go out to the subject property to conduct an inspection. FRONTLINE continued to investigate the loss, including by taking a recorded statement of the Complainant. After analysis of the subject policy of insurance, and based on the above factual investigation, FRONTLINE issued a coverage determination letter on August 29, 2024, denying coverage and providing its basis for same. The correspondence was in writing and was promptly sent to the Complainants with pertinent policy excerpts. The above demonstrates quite clearly that FRONTLINE acted good faith, acted fairly and honestly, acknowledged, and acted promptly upon receipt of the claim, attempted to determine coverage for the claim pursuant to the terms of the policy, took reasonable steps to investigate the claim, communicated reasonably with the Complainant about the claim, and provided the Complainant a reasonable explanation for each of its actions. Additionally, the CRN contains “cures” for the alleged defects; however, the listed “cures” are improper pursuant to Florida case law, specifically the case of Talat Enterprises, Inc., v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 753 So.2d 1278, 1281 (Fla. 2000). The Talat case provides that the scope of what can be "cured" is limited to the alleged non-payment of the contractual amount due to the insureds. Talat also commented that, “[i]t naturally follows that for there to be a ‘cure,’ what had to be ‘cured’ is the non-payment of the contractual amount due the insured. In the context of a first-party insurance claim, the contractual amount due the insured is the amount owed pursuant to the express terms and conditions of the policy after all of the conditions precedent of the insurance policy in respect to payment are fulfilled....” As a result, only a demanded “cure” relating to the specific amount needed to repair covered damages is proper and legal – any remaining “cures” are improper remedies and contrary to Florida law. The Complainant’s “Reasons for Notice” in the CRN are misplaced. The Complainant alleges, without a basis in the “Reason for Notice”, that there was: (1) claim denial, (2) claim delay, (3) unsatisfactory settlement offer, (4) unfair trade practice, and (5) misrepresentation. Contrary to the Complainants accusations, FRONTLINE has demonstrated it promptly acknowledged the claim, investigated, and attempted to determine coverage pursuant to the Policy’s language. FRONTLINE vehemently denies all the allegations of bad faith and of unfair trade practice, misrepresentation, misconduct, or intentional delay. In closing, FRONTLINE first believes that the CRN should be rejected and returned by the Department of Financial Services due to its failure to comply with Florida Statute § 624.155, Florida Statute § 626.9541, and Florida case law, and regardless of the rejection, FRONTLINE denies all allegations contained in the CRN and submits that there are no violations. While this response is meant to be comprehensive, FRONTLINE based the above-mentioned statements upon the limited information provided in the CRN and the information FRONTLINE has been provided to date. If the Complainant feels that FRONTLINE is not in possession of all the facts, please provide such additional information as soon as possible. Please note that FRONTLINE’s response is not necessarily exhaustive and does not preclude the assertion of other valid reasons for seeking rejection and return of the CRN. Also, nothing in this letter, or any act or failure to act on the part of FRONTLINE or any agent or representative of FRONTLINE should be construed as a waiver of any rights or defenses available to it by contract or at law as all such rights and defenses are hereby specifically reserved. We trust that this response addresses the allegations of insurer violation alleged in the CRN. Should you have any questions regarding this matter or need anything further, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Regards, /s/ Oscar Lombana Oscar Lombana, Esquire on behalf of Frontline Insurance Company
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