The Fourth District Court of Appeal reminded us what is required to challenge the validity of a civil remedy notice.

Ann Bailey sought recovery related to hurricane damage under a residential property insurance policy issued by People’s Trust Insurance Company (“People’s Trust”). People’s Trust determined that the covered damage did not exceed Ms. Bailey’s $6,425.00 hurricane deductible.

During the litigation process, Ms. Bailey filed a civil remedy notice (“CRN”) alleging several statutory violations. In response, People’s Trust did not agree to the scope of the damages claimed by Ms. Bailey. People’s Trust’s response cited the general requirements for a CRN and that the insured “violated” the principles from those requirements. However, People’s Trust’s response failed to point out any specific deficiencies with the CRN.

The claim proceeded to appraisal, and an appraisal award was entered in the amount of $90,330.61 RCV.¹

After the appraisal award was entered, Ms. Bailey filed a first-party bad faith action against People’s Trust. People’s Trust moved for summary judgment and argued:

1. the CRN contained generic and factually unsupported allegations, and
2. the CRN sought monetary payment when the insured was not entitled to payment because the insurer elected its right to repair the damaged property.

The trial court agreed with People’s Trust and entered summary judgment in its favor.

On appeal, Ms. Bailey argued that the insurer waived the right to contest the validity of the CRN by failing to identify specific defects in the response. The Fourth District looked to prior decisions addressing the failure to identify specific defects in the CRN response. See Bay v. United Servs. Automobile Ass’n, 305 So. 3d 294, 299-300 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (failing to raise defect that CRN named the wrong insurer); Neal v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 358 So. 3d 749 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) (failing to raise any legal deficiencies when they were not raised in the CRN response or in the initial answer); Pin-Pon Corp. v. Landmark Am. Ins. Co., 500 F. Supp. 3d 1336, 1348 (S.D. Fla. 2020) (same); Evergreen Lakes HOA, Inc. v. Lloyd’s Underwriters at London, 230 So. 3d 1, 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (failing to challenge the timing for receiving a CRN from DFS or the complainant when the CRN was originally mailed to the wrong address); see also Ingersoll v. Hoffman, 589 SO. 2d 223, 224 (Fla. 1991) (addressing waiver for failing to raise noncompliance with medical malpractice statute’s presuit notice requirements); Schumacher v. Town of Jupiter, 643 So. 2d 8, 9 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (same as to contesting zoning ordinance).

The Fourth District found that the insurer waived any legal deficiencies that were not addressed in the CRN response. Accordingly, the Fourth district reversed the trial court’s order and allowed the bad faith suit to continue.

Dutton Law Group has a dedicated team of professionals to review, analyze, and respond to civil remedy notices in first-party and third-party claims. Speak to a Dutton Law Group attorney today.