Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     820317
Filing Accepted:  5/8/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
TACO CITY 3, INC.   First Name  
Street Address * 2955 S. ATLANTIC AVENUE
City, State Zip * COCOA BEACH, FL 32931
Email Address * JGOLDFI331@YAHOO.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   TACO CITY 3, INC.   First Name  
Policy # * 5159856308 Claim #* 05000002480
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* JANDY First Name * MARC Initial
Street Address* 1800 PEMBROOK DRIVE, SUITE 250
City, State Zip* ORLANDO , FL 32810
Email Address * MARC@INSURANCEDISPUTELAW.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   FRONTLINE INSURANCE UNLIMITED COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10074
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* MONTIA THOMPSON
Type of Insurance * Commercial Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Unfair Trade Practice
Claim Denial
* 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)(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.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

BUILDING AND PERSONAL PROPERTY COVERAGE FORM A. Coverage We will pay for direct physical loss of or damage to Covered property at the premises described in the Declarations caused by or resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss. CAUSES OF LOSS – WINDSTORM OR HAIL FORM A. Covered Causes Of Loss When Wind is shown in the Covered Causes Of Loss section of the Declarations, Covered Causes of Loss means the following: Windstorm or Hail, but not including: . . . 4. Loss Payment c. We will give notice of our intentions within 30 days after we receive the sworn roof of loss. g. We will pay for covered loss or damage within 30 days after we receive the sworn proof of loss, if you have complied with all of the terms of this Coverage Part and: (1) We reached agreement with you on the amount of loss; or (2) An appraisal award has been made. FLORIDA CHANGES-WINDSTORM OR HAIL COMMERCIAL PROPERTY COVERAGE PART D. The Loss Payment Condition dealing with the number of days within which we must pay for covered loss or damage is replaced by the following: Provided you have complied with all the terms of this Coverage Part, we will pay for covered loss or damage upon the earliest of the following: (1) Within 20 days after we receive the sworn proof of loss and reach written agreement with you; (2) Within 30 days after we receive the sworn proof of loss and: (a) There is an entry of a final judgment; or (b) There is a filing of an appraisal award with us; or (3) Within 90 days of receiving notice of an initial, reopened or supplemental claim, unless we deny the claim during that time or factors beyond our control reasonably prevent such payment. If a portion of the claim is denied, then the 90-day time period for payment of claim relates to the portion of the claim that is not denied.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

The insured property sustained significant damage caused by and/or as a result of Hurricane Milton, which occurred on or about October 10, 2024. Promptly, the next day, Frontline Insurance Unlimited (hereinafter “Frontline”) was notified of the claimed loss. The initial inspection on behalf of Frontline, by their chosen independent adjuster, took place on October 18, 2024. This inspection confirmed covered wind damage to the property. On or about October 22, 2024, in compliance with Frontline’s request, a proof of loss statement was submitted on behalf of the insured. On or about November 19, 2024, Frontline acknowledged receipt of the proof of loss form; however, it advised it was deficient due to unspecified amount of the loss. Next, as per Frontline’s request, on December 9, 2024, another inspection took place on behalf of Frontline. Following the “secondary inspection”, by a Building Consultant assigned by Frontline, Frontline advised the Insured that it opened coverage, that its determination is not necessarily a full and final settlement of the claim and that the Insured may submit supplemental claims for additional damages. As per its investigation, Frontline determined the Replacement Cost Value to be $24,577.30. In accordance with the policy terms, Frontline subtracted $5,620.59 Coinsurance Penalty, $12,900.00 policy hurricane deductible, and issued a check to the Insured in the amount of $6,056.71. Frontline’s coverage determination letter was issued on or about January 13, 2025. During its investigation, Frontline significantly underestimated the amount of repairs which should have been covered in order to restore the property to its pre-loss condition. For example, the estimate prepared on behalf of Frontline, and relied on by Frontline estimate, completely failed to account for/denied coverage for the damage to the road sign, hood ventilator, and electrical system. Furthermore, Frontline’s coverage determination and estimate has failed to account for necessary repairs and replacements of all the HVAC systems despite the fact that its own investigator determined that all HVAC systems at the property are damaged by wind and/or as a result of wind. More specifically, on or about December 13, 2024, Onside Assessment Report for HVAC was prepared on behalf of Frontline. Frontline’s assigned inspector recommended repair of 1 system and Replacement of 3 systems. It was determined that the losses to all systems were caused by wind. The inspector’s recommended total replacement cost was $18,427.75 (Recommended actual cash value: $14,533.66). Notwithstanding the opinions and estimate of its own chosen inspector, to this date, Frontline has failed to pay for the damages to HVAC systems. On January 20, 2025, The Insured’s counsel provided Frontline with a letter of representation. Said communication expressed the Insured’s disagreement with Frontline’s coverage determination and provided an estimate of repairs, which was prepared by the Insured’s contractor. Additionally, on January 31, 2025, amended proof of loss form was submitted to Frontline on behalf of the insured. Frontline acknowledged receipt of the proof of loss statement and advised that investigation of the supplement is ongoing. During the investigation process, all Frontline’s requests for additional documentation and information were complied with. Notwithstanding the cooperation by and/or on behalf of the Insured, to this date, no further/supplemental coverage determination and/or supplemental payment by Frontline has been issued. Instead, Frontline’s adjuster, Ms. Montia Thompson, verbally conceded that Frontline’s initial coverage determination and estimate prepared on behalf of Frontline failed to acknowledge all damages which should have been covered. In fact, during the investigation and negotiation process, on March 31, 2025, the parties reached a verbal settlement agreement, which was further memorialized via email from the Insured’s counsel to Ms. Thompson. Frontline has failed to respond to the written confirmation of the agreed settlement and/or failed to provide any further written communication pertaining to the subject claim. Instead, on April 4, 2025, Ms. Thompson verbally advised the Insured’s counsel that she was not sure whether she would be able to proceed with previously agreed terms of the settlement. Despite continued efforts on behalf of the Insured, Frontline and Ms. Thompson has recently become non-responsive and failed to further communicate in reference to the subject claim. Based on the facts and timeline above, Frontline failed to conduct an adequate, timely, and reasonable investigation of the claim. Frontline has caused, and is still causing, unreasonable delays. Despite clear concessions by Frontline’s designated and assigned representatives, no further payments have been made to the Insured for the losses which should have been covered. Additionally, Frontline has failed to issue the settlement payment arising from the verbal agreement reached on March 31, 2025 even though a proof of loss statement was submitted and the settlement agreement was verbally reached more than thirty (30) days from the date of this notice. Based on the facts, Frontline should have honored coverage for damages which it failed to account for in its initial coverage determination letter, dated January 13, 2025. Based on the verbal settlement agreement, Frontline should have made payment in accordance with the agreement to resolve the subject claim; however, it failed to do so. Lastly, considering the timeline and the lapse of time since the claim was first submitted on or about October 11, 2024, Frontline clearly failed to comply with the statutory deadlines and requirements to complete its claim investigation process. It is believed that the Insurer’s actions in misleading the Insured, causing significant delays during the investigation process, are a general business practice of Frontline. Frontline can cure its bad faith conduct by 1) agreeing to pay the amount verbally agreed upon during a phone conference on March 31, 2025 prior to the expiration of the cure period; or 2) reaching an amicable settlement of the claim prior to the expiration of the cure period; or 3) paying the Insured for all damages that should have been covered. If either of these three options is timely performed, Frontline will cure its bad faith in this case and extinguish any and all of its liability for all bad faith damages which could be sought pursuant to this Civil Remedy Notice and any previously filed Civil Remedy Notices relating to the claim(s) at issue herein. If Frontline has any questions as to the Civil Remedy Notice, including any claimed lack of specificity, please advise the attorney who filed this Civil Remedy Notice within twenty (20) days of receipt of this filed Civil Remedy Notice so a response to your questions may be provided within the safe harbor period.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
marc@insurancedisputelaw.com 07-22-2025 The claim has been resolved and this Civil Remedy Notice is hereby withdrawn.
olombana@salehiboyer.com 06-27-2025 VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION: civilremedy@myfloridacfo.com Florida Department of Insurance Civil Remedy Section 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Re: Complainant: Taco City 3, Inc. Claim #: 05000002480 Policy #: 5159856308 CRN filing No.: 820317 CRN filing date: May 8, 2025 Notice Against: FRONTLINE INSURANCE UNLIMITED COMPANY To Whom It May Concern at The Department of Financial Services: Frontline Insurance Unlimited Company (“FRONTLINE”) submits this response to Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations No. 820317 (“CRN”) filed by or on behalf of Taco City 3, Inc. (“Complainant” or “Insured”). After reviewing the CRN, FRONTLINE conducted a thorough review of the subject claim and its handling. FRONTLINE denies that it has violated any statutes or policy provisions in the handling of this matter. First, the Notice is statutorily deficient. Section 624.155(3)(b), Fla. Stat., requires a Civil Remedy Notice to provide “with specificity” each of the following: (1) the statutory provision allegedly violated, including the specific language of the statute; (2) the facts and circumstances giving rise to a violation of the statutes referenced in the Notice; (3) the name of any individual involved in the alleged violation; and (4) the specific policy language that is relevant to the alleged violation. Accordingly, to be valid, the Civil Remedy Notice must be specific enough factually so as to provide an insurer with the opportunity to adequately respond to and, if necessary, timely cure the alleged violations within sixty days. See Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So.3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (a civil remedy notice is facially invalid where the insured fails to identify the specific statute and specific policy provisions relevant to the alleged violations). For these reasons, the Civil Remedy Notice filed on behalf of the Complainant fails to comply with the requirements of § 624.155(3)(b). FRONTLINE conducted a thorough review of its handling of the Complainant’s allegations and 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 sufficient 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); 624.155(1)(b)(3); 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a); 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c); 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f); FRONTLINE denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statutes. FRONTLINE specifically denies each and every one of the Complainant’s allegations that it violated any of the above-mentioned 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 because it fails to allege specific facts to support any of the statutory violations asserted. The Notice relies on generalized legal conclusions without identifying dates, documents, communications, or conduct that would place FRONTLINE on notice of any actionable wrongdoing. The CRN identifies §624.155(1)(b)(1), Florida Statutes, which addresses an insurer’s alleged failure to attempt in good faith to settle claims when, under all circumstances, it could and should have done so had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured. FRONTLINE denies any violation of this statute. From the outset of the claim, FRONTLINE promptly investigated the reported loss, assigned qualified individuals to inspect and evaluate the alleged damage, and issued timely payments for covered damages. FRONTLINE also invoked presuit mediation in response to the insured’s Notice of Intent to Litigate, further evidencing good faith and continued willingness to resolve disputed items. Regarding §624.155(1)(b)(3), FRONTLINE denies this allegation. FRONTLINE did not withhold or delay payment under any portion of the policy for the purpose of leveraging or influencing resolution of other coverage components. To the contrary, it issued payment for building, HVAC, and signage components individually and promptly. This illustrates FRONTLINE’s good faith effort to extend coverage fairly and timely without leveraging one coverage part against another. Regarding §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), the CRN makes a broad claim that FRONTLINE failed to adopt and implement standards for claims handling, but does not describe what standard was missing, or how the investigation was flawed. This type of vague assertion does not satisfy the statutory requirement to describe the "facts and circumstances" of the alleged violation. Regarding §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), FRONTLINE has acknowledged and responded to all communications in a timely manner. The insured was contacted following initial reporting, multiple written coverage determinations were issued, supplemental evaluation was completed after expert inspections, and FRONTLINE responded to the Notice of Intent to Litigate by invoking presuit mediation which is currently set to occur on July 22, 2025. No communication from the insured was ignored, and all were acknowledged and responded to within a reasonable time. Regarding §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), FRONTLINE issued multiple written communications, including its initial determination letter, and its supplemental coverage letter. These letters specifically cited the relevant policy provisions, along with factual findings from third-party consultants. Each decision was supported by detailed explanation and documentation. Accordingly, this allegation is without merit. Furthermore, 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 CRN simply recites generic legal conclusions. These assertions are unsupported by any evidence and are insufficient under Florida law. Additionally, the CRN fails to identify specific policy language relevant to any alleged violation. Blanket references to “Coverage” without citation to any specific provision renders the Civil Remedy Notice deficient. The allegations set forth in the CRN are denied as they are mere conclusory allegations, unsupported by fact, and are intended solely to pressure a settlement and tarnish FRONTLINE’s reputation. FRONTLINE, at all times, acted fairly, honestly and in good faith in its dealings with the Complainant. FRONTLINE did not engage in unfair settlement practices nor did FRONTLINE fail to promptly settle the claim or attempt to settle the claim in order to influence settlement under a different portion of the policy. 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 adjuster, building consultant and HVAC consultant, conducting inspections of the subject property to investigate the Complainant’s claim. As it relates to the facts of the claim, this matter arises from a reported windstorm loss occurring on October 10, 2024, at the insured commercial property located at 2955 S. Atlantic Avenue, Cocoa Beach, Florida. FRONTLINE promptly acknowledged the claim and assigned an independent field adjuster who inspected the property on October 18, 2024. The inspection confirmed wind-related damage to roofing elements, HVAC systems, and exterior signage. To further evaluate the scope and causation of damage, FRONTLINE retained HVACi and TruClaim Building Consultants, both of whom conducted site inspections as part of their investigation. Based on those findings, FRONTLINE issued an initial payment on January 13, 2025, followed by a supplemental payment on June 25, 2025, which included building, HVAC, and capped signage repairs, subject to the deductible, coinsurance penalty, and was made under reservation of rights while continuing to request documentation regarding incurred expenses and remaining scopes of loss in addition to clarification regarding invoices needing itemized breakdown for further evaluation. FRONTLINE also denies all allegations made regarding its adjuster, Montia Thompson. Ms. Thompson acted professionally, transparently, and in accordance with FRONTLINE’s claims-handling obligations throughout the investigation of this claim. At no point did Ms. Thompson concede that coverage was improperly denied, nor did she enter into a binding settlement agreement. While communications between representatives may have included exploratory discussion of potential settlement, no such agreement was ever confirmed in writing, executed by authorized representatives, or approved by FRONTLINE management in accordance with standard claims resolution protocol. Contrary to the allegations in the CRN, FRONTLINE did respond to the insured's supplemental submission by issuing a supplemental coverage letter and supplemental payment on June 25, 2025, which reflected additional HVAC and signage payments. Any suggestion that Ms. Thompson acted outside of FRONTLINE’s established procedures, or that she committed the company to a specific payment without formal approval, is categorically false. FRONTLINE has issued all payments determined to be owed under the policy based on the available information and expert findings, and it remains willing to engage in presuit mediation in good faith to address any documented and supported supplemental claims submitted by the insured. The above demonstrates quite clearly that FRONTLINE acted in 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. FRONTLINE further asserts that the CRN is invalid and unenforceable because it fails to provide a proper opportunity to cure as required under Florida law. The CRN offers multiple ambiguous “cure” options, including reference to an alleged verbal agreement not documented or authorized in writing, an undefined demand to “reach an amicable settlement,” and a subjective request to pay “all damages that should have been covered.” None of these options provide a clear, specific contractual amount alleged to be due under the policy. Florida courts have made clear that the CRN must place the insurer on notice of a definite amount it can pay to cure the alleged violation. See Talat Enters., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000); Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). Because the CRN fails to identify a specific monetary cure based solely on contractual obligations, it deprives FRONTLINE of a meaningful opportunity to cure and is therefore legally deficient. Additionally, mediation is currently scheduled to proceed on July 22, 2025, after it was invoked by FRONTLINE in response to the Insured’s Notice of Intent to Litigate. This invocation reflects FRONTLINE’s continued good faith effort to resolve the dispute without the need for litigation and further confirms that no delay or wrongful refusal to settle has occurred. 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. FRONTLINE’s response is based on the information currently available and is not intended to be exhaustive. Nothing herein should be construed as a waiver of any policy terms, conditions, or defenses available in law or equity. 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, Oscar Lombana, Esquire On behalf of Frontline Insurance Unlimited Company (“FRONTLINE”)
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