Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     828359
Filing Accepted:  6/24/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
MAGNOLIA'S MARKET ON THE BAY   First Name  
Street Address * 2395 N. BEACH ROAD
City, State Zip * ENGLEWOOD, FL 34223
Email Address * STEVEN@PLG.LAWYER
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   MAGNOLIA'S MARKET ON THE BAY   First Name  
Policy # * 1071353975 Claim #* 05000002855
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* HOFFMAN First Name * STEVEN Initial
Street Address* 1790 HIGHWAY A1A, SUITE 209
City, State Zip* SATELLITE BEACH , FL 32937
Email Address * STEVEN@PLG.LAWYER; HALEY@PLG.LAWYER
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):* FRONTLINE INSURANCE UNLIMITED D/B/A FRONTLINE INSURANCE’S ADJUSTERS, EMPLOYEES, REPRESENTATIVES, AGENTS, VENDORS, AND/OR ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS WHO HANDLED THE CLAIM, SPECIFICALLY THE DESK ADJUSTER
Type of Insurance * Commercial Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
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.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

The Policy language relevant to the violations includes all applicable loss payment, duties after loss, and coverage provisions of Policy Number 1071353975, including the declarations page and all endorsements to the Policy.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Claim #05000002855; DOL: October 9, 2024 Magnolia’s Market on the Bay (“Insured”) is the owners of a property with a policy of insurance issued by Frontline Insurance Unlimited d/b/a Frontline Insurance (“Carrier”). The Insured’s business is located at 2395 N. Beach Road, Englewood, FL 34223 (the “Property”). On October 9, 2024, Hurricane Milton caused extensive damage to the Property. The Insured timely reported an insurance claim for this damage to the Carrier and fully cooperated with all requests for inspection and information. Insured provided all requested documentation, if any, and complied with all post loss policy conditions reasonably and timely requested. The Insureds obtained representation from a public adjuster and an estimate for repair of the building for $228,353.26, with supporting documentation and photographs. Upon reporting the loss, the Carrier assigned a field adjuster who inspected the Property and prepared an estimate for the covered damages in the amount of $8,581.82 that came in under the Insured’s applicable hurricane deductible. This is a gross undervaluation for repair to a property damaged by a hurricane. The Insured also advised the Carrier they would be submitting a claim for business income loss. The Carrier denied the Insured’s claim for business income loss stating that the policy only affords coverage for damages when there is a direct physical loss of, or damage to, covered property caused by a cover cause of loss. The Carrier incorrectly stated the Insured advised that the business was closed due to flood and power outage. This is incorrect as upon information and belief the representative for the Insured notified the Carrier during their recorded statement that the reason for the business interruption was due to the wind from Hurricane Milton. The Carrier has also refused to provide the Insured with a copy of their recorded statement, even after requests for same. Section 624.02, Florida Statutes, 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 Insured may mitigate their damages and be put back into the position they were in prior to the loss as quickly as possible. The Carrier has breached this duty by refusing to properly and timely adjust the loss. The Carrier has more than enough information and is still refusing to accept full coverage for this claim. This continued and repeated reckless claim delay, unfair claim handling, failure to communicate, and failure to settle a claim in full that they should have, will result in a significant punitive damage award. The Carrier can avoid a lawsuit for bad faith by immediately accepting full coverage under the subject insurance policy and by paying the Insureds $228,353.26 for repair to the building plus $64,301.93 for the business income loss, minus the deductible. Further, the Carrier should pay the interest accrued from notice of the claim until the date that the Carrier pays $292,655.19, per Section 627.70131 Florida Statutes.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
steebagy@thetmlaw.com 08-22-2025 August 22, 2025 Via Electronic Filing Florida Department of Financial Services Bureau of Consumer Assistance Civil Remedy Section 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0322 Complainant: Magnolia’s Market on the Bay Policy Number: 1071353975 Claim Number: 05000002855 Date of Loss: Reported as 10/09/24 DFS File No.: 828359 Our File No.: 04880 Dear Sir/Madam: Please be advised that this law firm represents Frontline Insurance Unlimited d.b.a. Frontline Insurance (hereinafter “Frontline”) with respect to the above-referenced matter. This is Frontline’s response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (hereinafter “CRN”) filed by Steven Hoffman, Esquire on behalf of Complainant, “Magnolia’s Market on the Bay” in relation to Claim Number 05000002855 (hereinafter “Claim”) under the policy of insurance bearing Policy Number 1071353975 (hereinafter “Policy”) that was issued by Frontline to Magnolias Market on the Bay LLC (hereinafter “Insured”). Please consider this Frontline’s response to the subject CRN. The CRN is overbroad, objectionable, legally insufficient, fails to comply with Florida law and otherwise satisfy Florida law and further deprives Frontline of notice with adequate opportunity to cure. The CRN allegations are denied as set forth herein. The CRN alleges the following unsupported statutory violations: • 624.155(1)(b)(1); • 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a); • 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b); • 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c); and • 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d). All allegations contained within the CRN are denied, including but not limited to the above alleged violations of Sections 624.155 and 626.9541, Florida Statutes. In the CRN, the Insured fails to provide specific and sufficient information to support its allegations. Rather, it only provided inaccurate allegations and omissions with no basis in fact or circumstance. The CRN recites the aforesaid statutory provisions allegedly violated without any specificity. The CRN also impermissibly makes legal argument rather than setting forth specific facts as it relates to the unsupported allegations contained therein. Frontline denies that it violated any statutes, Florida law or Policy provisions regarding the Policy and Claim. Frontline has handled the Claim pursuant to appropriate standards governing the investigation of claims, has acted in good faith, fairly and honestly towards its Insured and with due regard for its Insured’s interests as well as complied with all other requirements pursuant to Florida law. The CRN is vague and of limited assistance as it asserts conclusory, boilerplate allegations without specific facts. To that end, a review of Florida Department of Financial Services Civil Remedy Notice filings made by counsel who filed the CRN reflects voluminous filings against other insurance companies he has dealt with in the past of which many contain similar, if not identical, renditions and allegations. Thus, it appears that this is a boilerplate CRN and is part of a pattern of practice that is meant to harass and obtain some sort of litigation advantage as opposed to a true embodiment of any real violation. The abusive use of the Civil Remedy process defeats the spirit as well as the intent of the law and should be strongly discouraged. Additionally, the CRN fails to recite any particular individual or specific Policy language allegedly relevant to any claimed violation. A Civil Remedy Notice must contain, among other things, the specific policy language that is relevant to the alleged violations, persons most responsible and the facts and circumstances giving rise to the alleged violation. See §624.155(3)(a)-(b), Fla. Stat. (Civil Remedy Notice must state with specificity the following information: “(2) The facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation. (3) The name of any individual involved in the violation. (4) Reference to specific policy language that is relevant to the violation, if any . . . .”); Heritage Corp. of South Florida v. Nat ’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 580 F.Supp. 2d 1294, 1299-1300 (U.S. S.D. Fla. 2008). The subject CRN is therefore insufficient as it fails to include any names of any individual involved in the alleged violations or “specific policy language that is relevant to the violation”, in contravention of the governing statute. Id. Additionally, if Frontline allegedly violated specific terms of the insurance Policy as alleged, as noted herein, the subject CRN must include the “terms of the insurance coverage” it has allegedly violated. The CRN fails to include this. Thus, the CRN fails to meet the requirements of the applicable Florida law. See § 624.155 (3)(b), Fla. Stat. Furthermore, simply listing what amounts to a Table of Contents of the Policy is insufficient to comply with either the spirit or the letter of the governing law. See Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (holding insured failed to satisfy the specific requirements that a Civil Remedy Notice identify the specific statute and specific policy provision relevant to the carrier’s alleged violations). The CRN also fails to properly identify the Insured’s name as reflected on the Policy, further infirming the CRN and any standing. Likewise, the allegations in the CRN are misleading, inaccurate and are not supported by the facts or subject Policy. Contrary to the CRN allegations, Frontline conducted a thorough Claim investigation that included the assistance of a building consultant and an engineer with these facts being omitted from the CRN. Based upon the totality of its investigation, to date, Frontline’s investigation has not revealed that any covered building damages exceed Building 1’s $55,000.00 applicable deductible under the Policy. Further, Frontline’s investigation determined there is no coverage for the alleged business income loss claimed by the Insured since Frontline’s inspections and investigation revealed any income loss was not the result of a covered cause of loss but rather was related to flood and/or widespread power outage both of which are excluded by the Policy. Frontline’s investigation did include a recorded statement given by the Insured’s general manager, Scott Barber. Frontline’s records do not reflect any prior request for the recorded statement as alleged in the CRN nor has Frontline refused to provide a copy. A copy of the recorded statement given in the Claim is enclosed. The CRN falsely alleges that Mr. Barber claimed “the reason for the business interruption was due to the wind from Hurricane Milton”. As noted herein, wind from Hurricane Milton did not render the property uninhabitable or result in any covered business loss under the Policy. Additionally, the CRN falsely alleges that the Insured provided all requested documentation and complied with all post loss Policy conditions. To the contrary, the Insured’s compliance with Policy conditions remains pending as it has not permitted examination of books and records by way of production of records and documents requested by Frontline including in correspondence to the Insured dated October 24, 2024, and August 5, 2025. Frontline directs the Insured to its prior communications sent in regards to the Claim, along with any enclosures including the estimate sent to the Insured, all of which speak for themselves and are incorporated by reference. Frontline further directs the Insured to the Policy that also speaks for itself and is relied upon in full by Frontline. Thus, the CRN makes inaccurate, misleading, and conclusory allegations in relation to the Claim. Additionally, the CRN does not provide a proper means whereby Frontline can “cure” the alleged defects. The purpose of a Civil Remedy Notice is to provide the insurer an opportunity to “cure” the alleged wrongdoing. Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. and Surety Co., 753 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). However, Section 624.155, Florida Statute, does not impose on an insurer the obligation to pay whatever an insured demands. Id. at 1282. To the contrary, the Florida Supreme Court holds that the scope of what can be “cured” in responding to a Civil Remedy Notice is limited to contractual amounts due to the insured. See id. at 1281. The CRN is deficient as it does not provide Frontline an opportunity to “cure” the alleged violations without making claim for unsupported remedies. Frontline is only obligated to pay contractual amounts owed to cure a civil remedy. See id. at 1278. Here, the requests, if in existence, are vague, conclusory, ambiguous, and not supported by the Policy or Florida law. To the extent the CRN seeks payment for the amount owed under the Policy, cure has already occurred since nothing further is owed based upon Frontline’s investigation to date which has revealed covered building damages did not exceed the applicable $55,000.00 deductible. Thus, as set forth in this response, the CRN fails to comply with Florida law, including the pleading requirements of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. It is also overbroad, objectionable, improper, and insufficient as noted herein. The alleged violations and allegations of bad faith in the CRN are unfounded, misleading, insufficient and denied by Frontline. Frontline has handled the Claim and continues to handle the Claim in compliance with the Policy and Florida law. Frontline also asserts that this response is not necessarily exhaustive and does not preclude it from asserting any other valid facts or defenses to the Claim or CRN. We trust that this correspondence addresses any concerns or questions which you may have regarding the CRN filed. Please feel free to contact us if you have any remaining questions, comments or require any additional information. Very truly yours, The Teebagy & Medeiros Law Group, PLLC Crystalin C. Medeiros, Esq. For the Firm Enclosure: Scott Barber Recorded Statement (via email to Steven Hoffman, Esq. at Steven@plg.lawyer; Haley@plg.lawyer) cc: Steven Hoffman, Esq. (via email: Steven@plg.lawyer; Haley@plg.lawyer)
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