Drafting the Florida Civil Remedy Notice: Statutory Requirements, Post-Reform Traps, and Practical Protocol

Informational only. Not legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is created by reading this post. Consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

Informational only. Not legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is created by reading this post. Consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

Disclaimer — Not Legal Advice. This article is published for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and should not be relied upon as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction. Statutes, rules, and case law change frequently; portions of this article may be out of date by the time you read it. Reading this article, contacting the author, or commenting on it does not, by itself, retain counsel. If you believe you have a legal claim or defense, consult an attorney admitted in the relevant jurisdiction promptly because deadlines (statutes of limitations, claim-presentment, and notice requirements) can extinguish rights without warning. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Florida's bad faith statute has a built-in kill switch: a deficient Civil Remedy Notice does not merely delay the case — it may end it. Every word in the notice is a litigation choice.

Doctrinal Framing

Florida's first-party insurance bad faith action is a creature of statute. Section 624.155 of the Florida Statutes creates both the substantive right and the procedural prerequisite that must be satisfied before any bad faith suit can be filed: the Civil Remedy Notice (CRN). Filed with the Florida Department of Financial Services (DFS), the CRN is simultaneously a notice to the insurer, a cure opportunity, and — when the insurer fails to cure — the documentary foundation of the lawsuit itself.

The CRN is not a form letter. Florida courts have dismissed bad faith actions where notices were too vague, too broad, or failed to track the statutory specificity requirements. Since the legislature's 2022–2023 reforms (HB 837 and SB 2A), the procedural and substantive landscape has shifted materially. Counsel drafting CRNs in 2025 and beyond must account not only for the pre-existing common-law framework but for a statutory structure that has added new prerequisites and, for property insurance claims, effectively realigned when a bad faith action can be commenced.

This post examines the statutory requirements for a valid CRN, the five-element specificity test, the cure-period mechanics, post-reform modifications, and drafting practice for plaintiff's counsel.

The Statutory Structure: § 624.155

Overview

Florida Statute § 624.155 creates a civil cause of action against an insurer for:

Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so (subsection (1)(b)(1));
Not promptly providing a reasonable explanation for denial of a claim or offer of a compromise settlement (subsection (1)(b)(2));
Failing to promptly notify an insured of additional information necessary to process a claim (subsection (1)(b)(3)); and
Other conduct described in § 626.951 or § 626.9541 (the Unfair Insurance Trade Practices Act).

The CRN requirement applies to all § 624.155 claims except those based on § 624.155(1)(a) (criminal violations). For the claims most relevant to property insurance bad faith litigation, the CRN is mandatory.

The Five Specificity Elements: § 624.155(3)(b)

The notice must be filed with the DFS on the department's prescribed form and must state with specificity:

The statutory provision, including the specific language of the statute, that the insurer allegedly violated. Generic citation to "§ 624.155" is insufficient. Quote the specific subsection the insurer violated. If the claim is failure to settle, cite § 624.155(1)(b)(1) and include the operative statutory language.

The facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation. This requires a narrative — not conclusory language. Identify the date of the covered event, the nature of the claim, the insurer's response, the adjuster involved, the dates of key communications, and the specific conduct constituting the violation. Courts have found CRNs insufficient where they recited only that the insurer "failed to properly investigate" without factual detail about what investigation was conducted and what steps were omitted.

The name of any individual insurer employee, agent, or adjuster who is responsible for the alleged violation. This is not optional. If you do not know the individual's name at the CRN stage, make reasonable inquiry of the insurer before filing. Naming only "State Farm" or "Allstate" without an individual name does not satisfy this element where a specific individual's conduct is the gravamen of the claim.

The specific policy language that is relevant to the alleged violation. Quote the policy provisions at issue. If the insurer's conduct involved improper application of an exclusion, quote the exclusion. If it involved failure to honor the loss-payment clause, quote that provision. Broad references to "the policy" do not satisfy this requirement.

A statement that the notice is provided to allow the insurer the opportunity to cure the violation. This is largely formulaic but must be present.

The 60-Day Cure Period

Upon receiving a valid CRN, the insurer has 60 days to cure the alleged violation. The 60-day period tolls the statute of limitations for the bad faith action during its pendency. If the insurer cures within 60 days — by paying the claim, adjusting the settlement, or otherwise remedying the stated violation — no bad faith action may be maintained. The CRN is an express legislative policy choice: give insurers an opportunity to correct their conduct before litigation.

If the insurer does not cure, the 60-day period expires and the plaintiff may file suit. The CRN is then attached to or incorporated by reference in the complaint.

Post-Reform Modifications: HB 837 and SB 2A

The 90-Day Safe Harbor for Liability Claims: § 624.155(4)(a)

Enacted in 2023, § 624.155(4)(a) creates a new safe harbor for liability insurance claims: an insurer that tenders its policy limits within 90 days of receiving a CRN is immune from bad faith liability under § 624.155(1)(b)(1) (failure to settle) for that claim. This provision is designed to incentivize rapid settlement on the liability side. Plaintiff's counsel in liability cases must now account for the possibility that a promptly tendered CRN will produce a limits tender — a favorable outcome, but one that forecloses the bad faith action.

Negligence Insufficient: § 624.155(5)(a)

Amended in 2023, § 624.155(5)(a) now expressly provides that a mere showing of negligence in claims handling is insufficient to establish bad faith. This aligns the statutory standard with prior common-law development but now appears in the text of the statute itself, making it a harder target for insurers to dispute in discovery and at trial.

The § 624.1551 Property Insurance Overhaul

This is the most consequential post-reform development for property insurance bad faith. Section 624.1551, enacted as part of SB 2A, provides that for property insurance claims, a bad faith action under § 624.155 may not be brought unless and until there has been an adverse adjudication (a court or binding arbitration finding) establishing that the insurer breached the insurance contract. An appraisal award — even one that significantly exceeds the insurer's offer — is expressly insufficient to satisfy this prerequisite.

The implications are significant:

Property bad faith plaintiffs in Florida can no longer pursue the prior strategy of resolving the underlying claim through appraisal and then immediately filing a bad faith action. They must litigate breach of contract to a favorable adjudication first.
The CRN is still required, but it now must be filed with awareness that the § 624.1551 prerequisite will gate the filing of the actual suit.
The strategic question becomes whether to pursue appraisal at all in cases with strong bad faith potential, or whether to proceed directly to litigation on the contract claim in order to obtain the § 624.1551 adjudication.

Note on applicability: § 624.1551 applies to property insurance claims. Liability insurance bad faith claims continue to be governed by the prior framework (with the 2023 modifications noted above).

Filing Mechanics

The DFS Form

The CRN must be filed on the form prescribed by the Department of Financial Services — not simply sent to the insurer as a letter. The DFS maintains the CRN form on its website. Filing on anything other than the prescribed form creates a deficiency that the insurer can raise as a threshold defense.

Service on the Insurer

After filing with DFS, serve a copy on the insurer. The notice runs from the date the insurer receives the copy, not from the DFS filing date.

If multiple insureds or multiple policies are involved in the same event, file a separate CRN for each. Courts have found that a single CRN purporting to cover multiple insureds or multiple policies does not satisfy the statutory prerequisites for each distinct bad faith claim.

The § 624.155(f) CRN Blackout Period

Florida Statute § 624.155 restricts filing a CRN within 60 days of an insurer's invocation of appraisal. The appraisal-invocation restriction reflects the legislative judgment that the appraisal process should be allowed to run its course before bad faith litigation is threatened. Monitor the appraisal timeline carefully and calendar the CRN filing window.

Drafting Practice: What Courts Have Found Deficient

Florida intermediate appellate courts have rejected CRNs that:

Cited the entire policy without identifying specific relevant provisions;
Used generic language about "improper claims handling" without factual specificity;
Identified only "claims department" without naming any individual;
Incorporated by reference voluminous claim correspondence without specifying which conduct constituted the statutory violation.

The governing principle, drawn from the text of § 624.155(3)(b) and reinforced by case law, is that the notice must be specific enough to allow the insurer to understand the precise violation alleged and take targeted corrective action. Vagueness is not cured by volume.

Conversely, courts have found CRNs sufficient where they: identified the date of loss, named the claims adjuster, quoted the specific statutory subsection violated, described the investigation steps the insurer failed to take, and quoted the policy provision the insurer misapplied. A well-drafted CRN reads like an annotated statement of claim — not a demand letter.

The Imhof Principle

In Imhof v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 643 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 1994), the Florida Supreme Court addressed the implications of an insurer's failure to respond meaningfully to a statutory notice. While the specific procedural posture of Imhof involved pre-§ 624.155 bad faith framework, its principle — that an insurer's non-response or inadequate response to notice evidence bad faith — informs how plaintiff's counsel should treat the 60-day cure period. Document everything the insurer does (and does not do) during the cure period. That record becomes evidence at trial.

Practice Notes: Strategic Considerations

File early and file specifically. The CRN tolls the statute of limitations during the 60-day period, but it also starts the clock on the insurer's cure obligation. Filing a vague CRN and then amending does not retroactively satisfy the specificity requirements for the original 60-day period.

Sync the CRN with the underlying claim strategy. For liability cases, the 90-day safe harbor means a CRN may produce a quick limits tender. If your damages theory exceeds policy limits, the bad faith action has value precisely because the limits tender closes the pre-suit window. Plan accordingly.

For property claims post-§ 624.1551, the CRN should be drafted with awareness that you are laying groundwork for a breach of contract trial first. The facts you plead in the CRN should be consistent with — and ideally anticipate — the breach allegations in the eventual coverage complaint.

Preserve the cure-period record. If the insurer attempts a "cure" that is inadequate — paying less than owed, paying part of the claim, or taking a corrective step that does not address the stated violation — document the inadequacy. A partial or pretextual cure does not satisfy the statute and does not bar the bad faith action.

Coordinate with the statutory bad faith punitive damages standard. Under § 624.155(8), punitive damages in a bad faith action require proof that the insurer's violation was part of a general business practice and was willful, wanton, or malicious. The CRN should contain the factual foundation for a general-business-practice argument if the circumstances support it — claims handling guidelines that reflect systematic underpayment, patterns of delayed investigation for the relevant claim type, or other indicators that the conduct was not an isolated error.

Open Questions

CRN specificity and post-amendment discovery. Courts have not fully resolved whether a plaintiff may supplement a CRN's factual basis after filing, or whether the notice is locked to the facts known at filing. The issue arises when discovery reveals misconduct not ascertainable pre-suit.

§ 624.1551 constitutional challenges. The property bad faith reform conditioning suit on prior adverse adjudication has been challenged in some quarters as effectively eliminating the bad faith cause of action in many property disputes. Whether courts will narrow the provision through construction or constitutional review remains to be seen.

Interaction of the 90-day safe harbor and extracontractual damages. The § 624.155(4)(a) tender safe harbor immunizes the insurer from bad faith liability for the failure-to-settle claim. Whether it also bars claims for attorney's fees under the bad faith framework is not settled.

Conclusion

The CRN is simultaneously the plaintiffs' litigator's first weapon and most common self-inflicted wound in Florida bad faith cases. The statutory specificity requirements are demanding by design — they reflect the legislature's choice to condition bad faith liability on actual notice of the precise violation alleged. Counsel who treat the CRN as a formality, or draft it broadly to preserve options, often find that vagueness has surrendered the case before discovery began. The answer is specificity anchored in facts: the name of the adjuster, the date of the misstep, the quoted policy provision, the quoted statute, and a factual narrative that an insurer's compliance department can act on. Draft the CRN as if you are drafting a complaint — because in Florida bad faith practice, it effectively is one.

Talk to Yates Anderson

If you are litigating a matter in this area — or weighing whether to — the working analysis above only goes so far. Request a case evaluation and a Yates Anderson attorney will respond within one business day.