Security First: the denial record

SEI'S SECOND OPTION WAS ESTIMATED TO COST $484,315.00, EXCLUSIVE OF COSMETIC REPAIRS TO THE STRUCTURE FOLLOWING STABILIZATION.

The carrier only offered to pay $0.00, after applicable deductible of $6,000.00, a gross underpayment for all the damage associated with this claim.

The INSUREDS also incurred $9,523.68 of additional living expenses to vacate the property due to the presence of mold until the same could be remediated.

An estimate for repair of all damages with respect to the [name redacted] ' claim was prepared on their behalf for $94,241.00 and was submitted to Security First.

At the same time, Mr. and Mrs. [name redacted] through public adjusting company Diamondback, investigated and adjusted the loss, determining a value of the Loss under Coverages A at $84,846.87.

To cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, Security First must: (1) Immediately tender all insurance proceeds due and owing to the Insureds that are fairly owed to them under the insurance policy that would reasonably place them back to a pre-loss condition pursuant to the estimate of

Issue immediate payment to the Complainant in the amount of $70,315.80, representing the combination of the Complainant's incurred repair expenses to date, plus the estimated cost of remaining repairs, subtracting the applicable hurricane deductible; (2.

Preferred Claim Solutions, Inc. has prepared a comprehensive estimate for the necessary repairs, totaling $66,167.07.

To cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, Security First must: (1) Immediately tender all insurance proceeds due and owing to the Insured that are fairly owed to them under the insurance policy that would reasonably place them back to a pre-loss condition pursuant to the estimate of

To cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, CARRIER must: (1) Immediately tender all insurance proceeds due and owing to the Insureds that are fairly owed to them under the insurance policy that would reasonably place them back to a pre-loss condition pursuant to the estimate of damage

They opened coverage for the privacy fence but claimed that the replacement of the fence would be less than her deductible of $1,000, which is not the case.

Indeed, an estimate for repair of all damages with respect to their claim was prepared on behalf of the Insureds for $56,878.85 and was submitted to Security First; well above the amount from Security First.

However, the Insurer wrongfully determined that it would only require $1,748.89 to restore the insured property to its pre-loss condition, resulting in no payment being issued to the Insured as the amount of covered damage allegedly fell below the policy deductible.

Accordingly, the insured is seeking to be made whole, and in order to avoid a finding of bad faith, the carrier must tender the full amount of the insured's estimate, $53,526.65, minus any prior payments and deductible, within 60 days.

Per the denial letter, it appears that Security First failed to ever consider the weather events around the time of the loss and focused solely on a farcical claim of damage existing from the installation of the roof despite never noticing this supposed damage prior to this loss.

The list of items that need to be repaired and/or replaced is missing at least eight items.

Insured reported the loss thereafter to SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY ("Insurer").

After assessing the damage and the true scope of repairs, the public adjuster prepared an estimate identifying $40,537.23 in covered damage to the dwelling.

FIRM timely notified SECURITY FIRST of the damage sustained to the property and contemporaneously provided an estimate of the damages in the amount of $37,070.36.

Subsequently, the insured prepared a loss package in the amount of $36,965.81 needed to restore the property back to its pre-loss condition.

Security First sent a letter to [name redacted] which confirmed partial coverage, denied the remainder, misrepresented policy coverages and tendered payment of only $8,732.33 (the "Coverage Determination Letter").

At the same time, the Insureds through their representatives obtained an estimate for the necessary repairs related to the loss, and that estimate totaled $33,880.50.

To remedy and/or cure this CRN, Insurer must immediately tender payment in the amount of $32,518.00 less any applicable deductible and prior payment to the Insured to complete the repairs for the Insured property.

To remedy and/or cure this CRN, Insurer must immediately tender payment in the amount of $29,971.00 less any applicable deductible and prior payment to the Insured to complete the repairs for the Insured property.

Subsequently, the insureds prepared a loss package in the amount of $29,955.00 needed to restore the property back to its pre-loss condition.

However, when the Insurer conducted its inspection of the insured property, the Insurer's representatives failed to conduct a thorough and adequate investigation, or the representatives intentionally ignored the damage observed and failed to make truthful and unbiased reports of the facts after inve

FIRM timely notified SECURITY FIRST of the damage sustained to the property and contemporaneously provided an estimate of the damages in the amount of $29,869.09.

Moreover, CCS determined that at least $27,316.16 worth of repairs would be required to return the property to its pre-loss condition as a result of the windstorm loss.

The insurer agreed to an estimate provided by East Roofing for a Replacement Cost Value (RCV) of $10,832.50, which included $6,499.50 in non-recoverable depreciation.

To remedy and/or cure this CRN, Insurer must immediately tender payment in the amount of $15,511.00 less any applicable deductible and prior payment to the Insured to complete the repairs for the Insured property.

Security First Insurance Company failed to pay the insured's claim for a plumbing loss under the homeowner's insurance policy when, under all of the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly and with due regard for the interests of insured.

The Insurer was provided with an estimate; however, the Insurer still failed to properly evaluate this claim and promptly settle although it has become reasonably clear that it should do so.

Security First Insurance Company failed to pay the insured's claim under the homeowner's insurance policy when, under all of the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly and with due regard for the interests of insured.

The Insurer has wrongfully denied the Insured's claim for benefits under the insurance contract without a reasonable explanation for doing so.

The denial letter also states that "[t]he reported date of loss exceeds the notice requirement pursuant to Fl.

As detailed in the notice, the carrier has failed to make a good faith effort to settle the insureds' claim, even when the circumstances clearly permitted and warranted such action.

THE INSUREDS REPORTED THE DAMAGE TO SFIC AND SUBMITTED A CLAIM, WHICH SFIC ASSIGNED CLAIM no. [redacted].

Security First inspected the subject property and determined that the roof was damaged by a covered peril, but denied payment for the interior damages.

The Insurer received the Hurricane Milton claim on October 16, 2024, but has since failed to take any action.

Security First Insurance Co. determined that coverage existed for the loss.

After sending an estimator to the insured's property, Security First sent a letter that the damages were under the insured's deductible.

FIRM timely notified SECURITY of the damages sustained to the property and contemporaneously provided an estimate of the damages sought to be recovered.

FIRM timely notified SECURITY of the damages sustained to the property and contemporaneously provided an estimate of the damages sought to be recovered.

The insurer sent a representative to the insured's property to perform a cursory inspection; however, the insurer's representative failed or refused to consider all the damage at the property covered by the policy.

ADDITIONALLY, UPON INFORMATION AND BELIEF, THE CARRIER NOR THEIR THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR PRODUCED ANY REPORT AND HAS ADMITTED IT HAS NOT RENDERED A COVERAGE DECISION.

To date, SFIC has refused to remit all proceeds due and owing to the Complainant for her loss, despite Complainant's compliance with her post loss obligations, and despite SFIC's receipt of an estimate contradictory to its unilateral assessment of the loss' value.

On September 4, 2024, the Carrier, by and through its agent [name redacted] summarily denied the Insureds claim on a "legal conclusion" and fiction that the Insured had only one year to report an insurance claim regarding Hurricane Ian.

To date, SFF has refused to remit all proceeds due and owing to the Complainant for his loss, despite Complainant's compliance with his post loss obligations, and despite SFF's receipt of an estimate contradictory to its unilateral assessment of the loss' value.

Immediately tender $ $33,500.00 payable to [name redacted] LIONEL DELGADO OQUENDO, UNITED WHOLESALE MORTGAGE, RAINBOW RESTORATION OF WELLINGTON, AND DUBOFF LAW FIRM.) - said amount being exclusive of any claims for attorney's fees and costs. 2.