ACTIVE STORM TROPICAL STORM DOLLY, 40 MPH, MOVING W 28 TRACK DOLLY →
PROPERTY-INSURANCE CLAIM HELP FL CITIESSC CITIESGUIDESTATESNEWSSITE MAPABOUT
HurricaneLaw.Pro, Florida and South Carolina property insurance claim resource HURRICANELAW.PRO
HOME / DENIALS / THE DOCUMENTS / STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY
CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE, FILED BY THE POLICYHOLDER WITH FLORIDA DFS

State Farm Florida: a $78,946 claim priced under the deductible

UPDATED 2026-08-23 FL NOT LEGAL ADVICE
WHAT THIS DOCUMENT IS

This is a Civil Remedy Notice: a complaint the POLICYHOLDER filed against the insurer with Florida’s Department of Financial Services. It describes the denial in the policyholder’s words and starts a 60-day clock for the carrier to respond. It is not the insurer’s letter.

Read the regulator filing

Opens the published document this page is built from, on the source's own site.

REPRESENTATIVE FOOTAGE · MATCHED TO THE ARGUMENT, NOT THE CLAIM
FROM THE FILINGVERBATIM · PUBLIC RECORD
“After assessing the damage and the true scope of repairs, the public adjuster produced an estimate identifying $78,946.87 in covered damage to the dwelling.”
Fla. DFS Civil Remedy Notice, Filing No. 812672 (Tampa), accepted 3/24/2025 · read the full document ↗
WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT

A Civil Remedy Notice is a formal complaint filed against an insurance company with Florida's Department of Financial Services. Filing one is the step Florida law requires before a policyholder can sue an insurer for bad faith. It is a public record, and the insurer gets 60 days to fix the problem before that right opens up.

So this is the policyholder's side of a dispute, written by their side, and it is an allegation rather than a finding. The insurer answered it, and its answer is published below alongside the complaint. Read both. Names, addresses, and policy and claim numbers have been removed here; everything else is quoted from the filing.

01WHO, WHAT, WHERE, WHEN, WHY
Who the filing is against STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY (NAIC #10739)
Who filed it The policyholder
Attorney of record Grant Krapf
Where the property is Tampa, Florida
When it was accepted by the state March 24, 2025
When the 60-day cure window closed May 23, 2025
Why, in the state’s own categories Claim Delay, Unfair Trade Practice
Type of insurance Residential Property & Casualty
Policy language at issue 627.70131 (1)(a) - Upon an insurer's receiving a communication with respect to a claim, the insurer shall, within 7 calendar days, review and acknowledge receipt of such communication unless payment is made within that period of time or unless the failure to acknowledge is caused by factors beyond the control of the insurer. If the acknowledgment is not in writing, a notification indicating acknowledgment shall be made in the insurer's claim file and dated. A communication made to or by a representative of an insurer with respect to a claim shall constitute communication to or by the insurer. 627.4137(1)(e) Each insurer which does or may provide liability insurance coverage to pay all or a portion of any claim which might be made shall provide, within 30 days of the written request of the claimant, a statement, under oath, of a corporate officer or the insurer's claims manager or superintendent setting forth the following information with regard to each known policy of insurance, including excess or umbrella insurance: A copy of the policy. Reference to specific policy language: The violations alleged are statutorily based and do not rely on any specific policy language. "It is an accepted principle of law that when parties contract upon a matter which is the subject of statutory regulation, the parties are presumed to have entered into their agreement with reference to such statute, which becomes a part of the contract, unless the contract discloses a contrary intention." Westside EKG Assocs. v. Found. Health, 932 So. 2d 214, 216 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), aff'd, 944 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 2006).
Did the insurer respond Yes, on February 10, 2026
02WHAT THE FILING SAYS HAPPENED
THE POLICYHOLDER'S ACCOUNT, QUOTED FROM THE FILING

State Farm Florida Insurance Company (the "Insurer") has committed the following in handling the Insured's claim: 1) failure to act in due diligence and good faith to resolve claims; 2) placing the financial interest of Insurer before that of the policyholder and the Insured; 3) looking for ways to deny benefit payments and otherwise "low ball" or "stone wall" claims; 4) not adjusting the claims promptly and fairly; 5) not attempting in good faith to settle claims; 6) conducting inadequate investigations; 7) failing to employ policies and procedures to conduct adequate investigations; 8) failing to provide an estimate that complies with the Florida Building Codes; 9) failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims; 10) 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; and 11) failing to provide a copy of the insurance policy within 30 days. On or about October 9, 2024, while the subject policy was in full force and effect, the Insured's property was severely damaged by Hurricane Milton. The areas impacted include but are not limited to the shingle roofing system, the modified bitumen roofing system, panel roof, exterior, two guest bedrooms, garage, laundry room, living room, and family room. The Insured timely submitted a claim to the Insurer for hurricane damage and the ensuing damage therefrom. Thereafter, the Insurer assigned claim no. [redacted] to the loss and sent a field adjuster to inspect the property. Then in a letter dated November 6, 2024, the Insurer notified the Insured that it was extending coverage for the loss. However, the Insurer wrongfully determined that the damages did not exceed the policy deductible. The Insurer's lowball estimate is that of a classic under scope and under value of the claim. Given the vastly underestimated cost of repairs the Insured's disagreement with the coverage decision, and the scope and nature of the damage resulting from Hurricane Milton, the Insured retained a public adjuster. After assessing the damage and the true scope of repairs, the public adjuster produced an estimate identifying $78,946.87 in covered damage to the dwelling. The foregoing estimate, photographs, and a letter of representation from the public adjuster were sent to the Insurer. Upon receiving notice of the loss, the Insurer had the duty to provide the full benefits under the policy. This includes providing the Insured with a proper investigation and the funds necessary to return the home to its pre-loss condition. However, when the Insurer conducted its inspection of the insured property, the Insurer's adjuster failed to conduct a thorough and adequate investigation, or the adjuster intentionally ignored the damage observed and failed to make truthful and unbiased reports of the facts after investigating. As a result, the Insurer breached the policy by failing to fully indemnify the Insured for the covered loss. Rather than the Insurer pay for a roof replacement consistent with all laws and ordinances, the Insurer contends the roof is repairable which is not true. All repairs to the roofing system must be done in accordance with applicable Florida Building Codes which require all repairs be done consistent with the manufacturer's specifications and warranties which this Insurer clearly did not account for. Additionally, although there was interior water damage the adjuster did not use a moisture meter. A moisture meter can be purchased online from Amazon for around $40 before tax. The Insurer could purchase a moisture meter and assess thousands of properties with one meter. Instead, the Insurer would rather place its financial interests over those of the Insured by failing to provide the adjuster with the necessary tools to correctly inspect the loss. As a result of the inadequate investigation and surrounding circumstances it is apparent that Insurer significantly underestimated the scope of the loss to the Insured's property. Insurer and its adjuster have colluded to misrepresent the true scope of damages to the insured property and the true replacement costs of the damages. This is an underhanded attempt to place the financial interest of Insurer over those of the Insured, to delay the Insured's claim, and to delay the Insured in restoring his property to its pre-loss condition. The Insurer continued to delay and frustrated the Insured's ability to have her claim adjusted promptly to begin restoring her property by failing to timely provide the Insured with the policy after requested by the Insured through her representatives. The Insured, through her representatives, requested the policy several times with no response. The policy was not received within 30 days of the first written request of the Insured. Each Insurer which does or may provide liability insurance coverage to pay all or a portion of any claim which might be made shall provide, within 30 days of the written request of the Insured, a statement, under oath, of a corporate officer or the insurer's claims manager or superintendent, a copy of the policy. Fla. Stat. 627.4137(1)(e). There may be further wrongful conduct which has not been made known to the Insured at this moment. Certain conduct or actions may be discovered throughout discovery or cannot be verified without a review of the Insurer's claim file and standards and procedures for the adjustment and investigation of claims. In short, the Insurer is not acting with due regard for the Insured's interests or safety. In Florida the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. The Insurer has breached this trust and its duty to the Insured. The Insurer and its agents conducted cursory and inadequate investigations and wrongfully determined that the cost of repairs did not exceed the policy deductible. Moreover, the Insurer has engaged in bad faith practices designed to delay claims and prevent the Insured from recovering what is rightfully owed under the subject policy of insurance. The Insurer's actions and inactions have continued to frustrate and delay the resolution of the Insured claim. The Insurer's actions amount to but are not limited to the following:

1. Claim delay

2. Not treating the Insured with good faith claims conduct

3. Looking for way to reduce recovery to the Insured

4. Looking for ways to deny recovery to the Insured

5. Not adjusting claims and evaluating loss properly, promptly and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to the Insured

6. Not training, supervising or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made, but rather placing the company's interests before the Insured's interests

7. Placing the financial interest of the Insurer over that of the health and safety of the Insured

8. Failing to provide an estimate that complies with the Florida Building Codes

9. Shifting the burden of investigating onto the Insured 10. Conducting inadequate investigations 11. 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. 12. Failing to provide a copy of the insurance policy within 30 days Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this civil remedy notice, the Insurer must: (1). Admit full coverage for the Insured's loss. (2). Tender full benefits owed to the Insured under the insurance contract. A copy of this form submitted to the FDFS has been sent via e-mail to the following parties providing them notice of the filing of the civil remedy notice. Please e-mail any response to this civil remedy notice to [email redacted]. Via E-mail: State Farm Florida Insurance Company [address redacted] Winter Haven, FL 33888-0007 [email redacted]

WHAT THE FILING DEMANDS THE INSURER DO TO FIX IT

(1). Admit full coverage for the Insured's loss. (2). Tender full benefits owed to the Insured under the insurance contract.

03THE LAWS THE FILING SAYS WERE BROKEN

These are the statutes named on the form. The wording under each is the statute's own, as the state prints it on the notice.

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)(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.
04WHAT THE INSURER ANSWERED

Filed with the state on February 10, 2026. This is the insurer's own written response to the complaint above, quoted from the same public record.

Read the insurer's response in full

The details herein have been amicably resolved between the parties; therefore, we withdraw this Civil Remedy Notice. This Civil Remedy Notice is hereby withdrawn.

05-15-2025

May 15, 2025 Via Electronic Submission

Florida Department of Insurance Civil Remedy Section [address redacted]reet Tallahassee, FL 32399

Re: Policyholder: [name redacted] S. [name redacted] Complainant: [name redacted] S. [name redacted] Policy no. [redacted] Claim no. [redacted] Date of Loss: October 9, 2024 Date Reported: October 14, 2024 DFS File No.: 812672

Dear Ms. [name redacted] S. [name redacted] c/o [name redacted] W. Krapf:

This is State Farm Florida Insurance Company's ("State Farm") formal response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations ("CRN") filed on behalf of [name redacted] by attorney [name redacted] W. Krapf, Esq. as it relates to Claim no. [redacted]. The Department of Financial Services ("DFS") accepted the CRN on March 24, 2025, and assigned it filing number 812672.

The following reply has been uploaded to the Department of Financial Services.

Please accept this correspondence as State Farm's response to the Civil Remedy notice. referenced claim. The Civil Remedy Notice filed on behalf of the Complainants is defective on its face and fails to allege sufficient facts in support of many of the purported violations with the required specificity mandated by Florida Statute §624.155. Additionally, State Farm asserts it has acted in good faith in its investigation and in accordance with terms, conditions, definitions, limitations, exclusions, and endorsements contained within the subject insurance policy. Accordingly, State Farm Florida Insurance Company demands the CRN be withdrawn.

While State Farm Florida Insurance Company welcomes the opportunity to respond to this CRN and specifically denies each and every allegation contained in the CRN referenced above, State Farm requests the CRN be rejected as it fails to comply with several of the requirements of the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation document provisions as set forth in Florida Statute §624.155 and Florida case law.

Further, after reviewing the CRN, State Farm denies all allegations contained in the Insured's CRN. State Farm conducted a thorough review of its handling of the Insured's claim, Subject Claim no. [redacted]. State Farm denies that it has violated any of the statutes as alleged in the CRN. At all times, State Farm acted in good faith, fairly and honestly toward its Insured and with due regard for the Insureds' interests. State Farm also argues that the CRN fails to adequately describe the alleged violations and fails to provide sufficient information to allow State Farm to correct the alleged violations. In order to resolve the ambiguity associated with the Civil Remedy Notice State Farm sent a good faith letter to obtain additional information on May 2, 2025 . As of the filing of this response there has been no response by Ms. [name redacted] 's counsel. The CRN requires the Insureds to "indicate all statutory provisions alleged to have been violated," pursuant to section 624.155, F.S.. Because the CRN fails to identify the specific facts applicable to the listed statutes that were allegedly violated with respect to the subject claim, State Farm is unable to properly respond and said CRN should be rejected and returned. Specifically, Insureds allege the following violations of Florida Statutes:

• § 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 and his interests. State Farm strictly denies any violation of any section of Florida Statute § 624.155(1) (b) (1).

• § 626.9541(1) (i) (3) (c): Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. State Farm strictly denies any violation of Florida Statute §626.9541(1) (i) (3) (c).

• § 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 of settlement. State Farm strictly denies any violation of Florida Statute § 626.9541(1) (i) (3) (f). • § 627.70131(1)(a): Upon an insured's receiving a communication with respect to a claim, the insurer shall within 7 calendar days, review and acknowledge receipt of such communication unless payment is made within that period of time or unless the failure to acknowledge is caused by factors beyond the control of the insurer. If the acknowledgment is not in writing, a notification indicating acknowledgement shall be made in the insurer's claim file and dated. A communication made to or by a representative of an insurer with respect to a claim shall constitute communication to or by the insurer. State Farm strictly denies any violation of Florida Statute §627.70131(1)(a).

• § 627.4137(1)(e): Each insurer which does or may provide liability insurance coverage to pay all or a portion of any claim which might be made shall provide, within 30 days of the written request of the claimant, a statement, under oath, of a corporate officer or the insurer's claims manager or superintendent setting forth the following information with regard to each known policy of insurance, including excess or umbrella insurance. State Farm specifically denies the Insureds' allegations that State Farm violated the above referenced statutes, any portion of the administrative code, or any Florida Statute reference in the instant CRN. Also, the CRN fails to set forth any specific policy language alleged to have been violated in accordance with Florida Statute §624.155(3) (b) (4), other than listing a vague recitation of what they believe is the applicable policy language to the alleged violation. In fact, the CRN states that the CRN does not rely on any specific language. It is this failure to identify the specific policy provision(s) that is(are) allegedly relevant to the alleged violation(s) that prevent(s) State Farm from addressing any issues regarding the Subject Claim and Policy See Junior Julien v. United Property and Casualty Insurance Company, No. 4D9-2763 (Fla. 4th DC September 23, 2020). 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 purpose of which is "to enable the insurer to investigate and resolve [the] claim," the CRN itself only provides unsupported, vague, ambiguous, and incorrect allegations with no basis in fact or circumstances. Aside from the fact that the allegations are devoid of any specific facts, the tenor and inferences of the allegations are wholly without merit and State Farm denies each and every one. Finally, the Notice fails with respect to its requirement to specify how State Farm may "cure" the alleged violations. The purpose of a Civil Remedy Notice is to provide a carrier with one last opportunity to "cure" the alleged violations. In this instance, there is no indication at all what action State Farm needs to take to cure the alleged violations. Assuming arguendo, that the real "cure," sought by the Insured, is payment of all insurance proceeds demanded by the Insured, notwithstanding State Farm's right to investigate and adjust the loss. The method for curing the violations alleged in a civil remedy notice are not determined by the Insured. Section 624.155 does not impose on an insurer the obligation to pay whatever the insured demands. Section 624.155(2)(d) would have no effect or purpose under such an interpretation. In Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 753 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 2000), the Florida Supreme Court accepted and quoted the reasoning of the court below in its opinion which stated in relevant part, as follows: Section 624.155 does not impose on an insurer the obligation to pay whatever the insured demands. . . . Section 624.155(2)(d) would have no effect or purpose under such an interpretation. The law does not support such an expansive and illogical reading of Fla. Stat. Ann. §624.155(2)(d). . . . [t]o cure an alleged violation and to avoid a civil action, an insurer must pay the claim . . . before the sixty days expire. Talat, 753 So2d at 1282 citing Talat Enterprises Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 952 F.Supp. 773, 777-778 (M.D. Fla. 1996). The law does not support such an expansive and illogical reading of Fla. Stat. Ann. §624.155(2)(d). Talat, 753 So2d at 1282 citing Talat Enterprises Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 952 F.Supp. 773, 777-778 (M.D. Fla. 1996). For the aforementioned reasons, the Civil Remedy Notice is insufficient as a matter of law. State Farm acted in good faith, fairly and honestly toward the Insured in the adjustment of the instant claim. State Farm was contacted on August 5, 2024, and informed of a loss as a result of windstorm on August 4, 2024. State Farm promptly set up a date and time for an inspection by a licensed adjuster to determine the cause of loss, and if appropriate, cost to bring the property back to pre-loss condition. The property was inspected on August 19, 2024, and an estimate was completed. The estimate did not exceed the policy deducible therefore no payment was issued on the claim. On April 23, 2025, an additional inspection was performed by a licensed adjuster and a payment was subsequently issued to Ms. [name redacted] for the loss. It is important to note, that while an insurance company is required to settle claims that should be settled, it is not required to settle claims that are legitimately contested. Florida law continually affirms the principle that an insurer has the right to investigate claims presented for payment. An insurance company is expressly afforded an opportunity to evaluate its rights and liabilities. Neither the subject policy nor does Florida law provide that a carrier must accept whatever demand for repairs it is provided by its Insureds as the amount necessary to repair a loss. In the instant case, the violations alleged by the Insured all revolve around the contention that that State Farm did not accept and pay the Insured's full demand for repair. Fla. Stat. § 624.155(1)(b)(1): Denied. State Farm conducted a complete, thorough investigation of the loss utilizing two licensed adjusters to inspect the property and determine coverage for the damages. Based on the inspections of the property coverage was opened on claim. The Insureds have failed to provide documentation which disputes the findings of the adjuster's investigation. Therefore, no violations of §624.155(1)(b)(1) have occurred.

Fla. Stat. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c): Denied. State Farm has diligently answered Insured's communications since the claim was initially reported to State Farm. Insured's counsel and Insured's public adjuster made several requests regarding the coverage decision letter. The coverage letter was subsequently provided to Insured's counsel and public adjuster. Additionally, Insured's counsel and public adjuster requested coverage for the interior of the property. State Farm provided a response to the request based upon their investigation of the claim. Insured's counsel and public adjuster also provided the State Farm with estimates for the damage at the Property. State Farm issued correspondence confirming receipt of said estimates, reviewed the estimates and reached a coverage decision regarding the claim. State Farm also provided responses to the Sworn Proof of Loss received from Insured and a copy of the policy. As State Farm has provided the Insured with a copy of the policy therefore there have been no violations to §626.9541(1) (i) (3) (c) have occurred.

Fla. Stat. § 626.9541(1) (i) (3) (f): Denied. After State Farm's diligent investigation of the claim State Farm issued a coverage decision letter by which coverage was opened for said claim. A copy of said coverage decision letter was not only provided to the Insured but Insured's counsel and public adjuster. As such Insured's claim that a reasonable explanation in writing was not provided if false. Since a coverage decision letter was provided to the Insured which outlined a the reasonable explanation in writing for the basis of the insurance policy therefore was no violation to § 626.9541(1) (i) (3) (f) have occurred.

Fla. Stat § 627.70131(1)(a): Denied. State Farm has diligently answered Insured's communications since the claim was initially reported to State Farm. Insured's counsel and Insured's public adjuster made several requests regarding the coverage decision letter. The coverage letter was subsequently provided to Insured's counsel and public adjuster. Additionally, Insured's counsel and public adjuster requested coverage for the interior of the property. State Farm provided a response to the request based upon their investigation of the claim. Insured's counsel and public adjuster also provided the State Farm with estimates for the damage at the Property. State Farm issued correspondence confirming receipt of said estimates, reviewed the estimates and reached a coverage decision regarding the claim. State Farm also provided responses to the Sworn Proof of Loss received from Insured and a copy of the policy. Since State Farm has provided responses to all communications therefore no violations to § 627.70131(1)(a) have occurred.

Fla. Stat §627.4137(1)(e): Denied. The claim was reported to State Farm on October 14, 2024. There was an inspection of the Property on October 25, 2024. The coverage decision letter was issued regarding the claim on or about November 6, 2024. There were approximately twenty-one (21) days between the initiation of the claim and resolution of said claim. As coverage was provided well before the thirty days therefore no violations to §627.4137(1)(e) have occurred.

In closing, State Farm takes the position 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 and Florida Case law, and regardless of the rejection, State Farm denies all allegations contained in the CRN and submits there are no violations to the insured. While this response is meant to be comprehensive, State Farm's response above is based upon the limited information provided in the CRN and the information State Farm has to date. If the Insured, or [name redacted] Krapf, Esq. is in possession of information or facts that State Farm is not in possession of, State Farm requests all such information or facts be provided to it immediately. Please note that State Farm's response is not necessarily exhaustive and does not preclude it from asserting any other valid reason for seeking rejection and return of the CRN. Also, this letter or any act or failure to act on the part of State Farm or any agent or representative of State Farm should not 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 of Insurer Violation. Should you have any questions regarding this matter or need anything further, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, [name redacted] Esq. On behalf of State Farm Insurance Company

cc: [name redacted] W. Krapf, Esq. Counsel for [name redacted] 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.

Florida DFS Civil Remedy Notice, filing number 812672. Read the filing on the state's site ↗

A Civil Remedy Notice records an allegation, not a finding. Nothing here has been decided by a court or by the Department. Not legal advice; consult an attorney about your specific claim.

07WHY THIS ONE IS IN THE ARCHIVE

Selected from the Civil Remedy Notices read for the archive as a documented example of a claim priced under the deductible. The pattern page shows how often that argument appears and which carriers the filings name.

FREE CASE REVIEWDenied, underpaid, or delayed? Get a free attorney case review, no fee unless you recover.START MY REVIEW
ANSWER THIS ARGUMENT
SOURCE

Fla. DFS Civil Remedy Notice, Filing No. 812672 (Tampa), accepted 3/24/2025 · public record ↗

Quotes are verbatim from the cited public record. Case status and statute summaries drafted August 2026; verify against the current docket and statute. Not legal advice; consult an attorney about your specific claim.

02 · FREE LETTER REVIEW

Got a letter like this one?

Upload it. You'll get a straight answer on which argument the carrier is running, how the same argument has fared on the record, and what the strongest next move is.

The library grows one letter at a time. Letters shared with permission are published redacted, with the policyholder's details removed.

CASE FILE · HL-2026 · INTAKE OPEN
FREE CASE REVIEW
PROPERTY INSURANCE CLAIM
REVIEWED BY HALVERSEN LAW
01Who you are
02Your claim
03Your documents
Drop your documents here, or tap to browse
Denial letter · policy · adjuster estimate · damage photos, PDF, JPG, PNG, HEIC or DOC, up to 25MB each
08LAW FIRM
Halversen Law logo
Property-insurance attorneys · Licensed in SC & FL4.8on Google
LAW FIRM · SC & FL

Denied or underpaid? Fight it with the carriers’ own playbook.

LICENSED · SOUTH CAROLINALICENSED · FLORIDA

Halversen Law is a property-insurance law firm licensed in South Carolina and Florida that represents policyholders, never carriers. Since 2008, the firm has taken on denied, underpaid, and delayed claims across the full range of storm and property losses: wind and hurricane damage, water disputes, roof claims, and commercial and condominium losses. Its attorneys spent the early part of their careers defending insurance companies, and now use that inside knowledge of the carrier playbook, how an adjuster builds a denial and where the file is weak, to fight for the policyholder on the other side of it. Cases are handled on contingency: no fee unless you recover.

No fee
Unless you recover
20+ yrs
Property-insurance experience
SC & FL
Licensed in both states
WHAT THE FIRM HANDLES
Denied claimsUnderpaid claimsDelay & bad faithWind & hurricaneWater & floodRoof damageCommercial & condo
HOW THE FIRM FIGHTS
01
Rebuild the evidence
Pre-storm condition, address-specific wind data, and an independent inspection.
02
Answer scope with scope
The carrier estimate countered line by line with a full documented estimate.
03
Apply the deadline law
Notice, supplemental, and suit windows under Florida and South Carolina statute.
04
Escalate when it pays
Appraisal, civil remedy notice, and bad-faith litigation when the carrier will not deal.
CREDENTIALSLicensed in South Carolina & FloridaProperty-insurance litigationPolicyholder representation since 2008Martindale-Hubbell DistinguishedFormer insurance-defense background
CASE REVIEW
No fee unless you recover.
CALL OR TEXT · NO OBLIGATION · CONFIDENTIAL
WHAT CLIENTS SAY4.8on Google
C
Cynthia Speigh
Google review
“I am writing to express my sincere appreciation for his exceptional service.”
J
James Parker
Google review
“What impressed me was his research and knowledge of the applicable laws, his approach to my case, and comparisons to similar cases in other states.”
T
Trey Muckenfuss
Google review
“Great to work with, and he really battles for you.”
R
Rick Gaston
Google review
“Mr. Halversen took on an insurance fraud case for my company that almost put us in a serious financial bind.”
F
Freeman Barber
Google review
“Reliable, responsive, extremely knowledgeable, and does a tremendous job. A pleasure to work with.”
C
Charles Wallace
Google review
“An outstanding lawyer who can handle a wide variety of matters, from simple matters to full-blown litigation.”
EVERY STATEOutside Florida or South Carolina? We'll connect you with a vetted property-insurance attorney licensed in your state. Same review, no obligation.START A REVIEW →
HurricaneLaw.Pro, Florida and South Carolina property insurance claim resource HURRICANELAW.PRO

A comprehensive property-insurance claim resource for policyholders: denied and underpaid claims, coverage and bad-faith law, storm dossiers, carrier profiles, city guides, and the complete claims playbook. Florida and South Carolina.

▸ SEE THE FULL SITE MAP →
STORM ALERTS SOURCED FROM NOAA / NHC
SOUTH CAROLINA
496 Bramson Court, Suite 100
Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
CALL OR TEXT
FLORIDA
CALL OR TEXT
STORM ARCHIVE, CITIES & NEWS
Most recent below. Every storm dossier, city resource, and article is on its hub (linked at each heading) or the grouped site map →. All 81 carriers and 95 public-adjuster firms are in the Directories column above.
STORM ARCHIVE · 51 →
FLORIDA CITY RESOURCES · 37 →
SOUTH CAROLINA CITY RESOURCES · 8 →
NEWS & UPDATES · 20 →

Coverage summaries, policy-language quotations, dollar figures, deadlines, and chart examples throughout this site are general information based on typical or standard policy forms and are illustrative only: they are not a quote, a guarantee of coverage, or a promise of any outcome. Every insurance policy is different: your own policy, endorsements, and state law control, so read your policy and confirm current statutes. Weather imagery courtesy of NOAA, the National Hurricane Center, and the National Weather Service. Legal services are provided by Halversen Law. Nothing on this site is legal advice; consult an attorney about your specific claim.

PrivacyTermsDisclaimerAboutContact
This site is not legal advice, and it is not a substitute for an attorney. We build the best claim resource we can, but anything legal needs a licensed lawyer reading your policy and your facts. We recommend Halversen Law: the free claim review is the fastest way to get real eyes on your claim.
© 2026 HURRICANELAW.PRO · ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 27.9°N 82.5°W · ATLANTIC BASIN MONITOR
LAW FIRM
Halversen Law LICENSED · FLORIDA & SOUTH CAROLINA

Legal matters are handled by Halversen Law, a law firm licensed in Florida and South Carolina.

FREE CASE REVIEW