ComplaintsforSecurity First Insurance Company

• Initial Complaint

  06/05/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Product Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  I requested to cancel my policy with Security 1st insurance on 12/12/23 via Farm Beaure agent. Farm Beaure said that Secuirty 1st mailed the check out on 12/25/23 waited till 01/10/24 and called *********** to tell them I did not receive the 1st check. Security 1st placed a stop payment on that 1st check, and then I did receive that 1st check on 1/25/24 and it was dated 1/10/24, and this happened again with check #2, I called Security 1st around 2/19/24 Spoke to a **************** team lead, (*******) informing them I have not received the 2nd check , and was told they will put a stop payment on check #2. The 2nd check arrived 2/28/24 , but I was told by security 1st that they did put a stop payment therefore could not cash that 2nd check ( 2nd check issue date is 2/20/24). Security 1st said they will issue a 3rd check and mail it to Farm Beaure address (*************************************************************), and I have emailed Farm Beaure to check if they recieved a chek on my behalf, and was told no, so I called again Security 1st spoke to ******************* a customer service lead, who said the 3 rd check was not mailed to Farm Beaure it was mailed to my address *********************, this was supposedly mailed back in Feb 2024 when I made the second complaint to security 1st. Till now I have not recieved my money, this has been going on over 6 month. I just want my money. Thank you

  Business response

  06/19/2024

  Security First regrets that our policyholder did not receive the premium refund payment in a timelier manner, but we understand that our customer now has received and negotiated the most recently issued refund check.
  SFI issued the refund payment four times, on December 27,2023, January 10, 2024, February 20, 2024, and May 31, 2024, and we sent all the checks to the mailing address of record for this policy. The checks issued on December 27 and January 10 were received by our customer, but only after we had issued a stop payment order and reissued the checks at the request of our policyholder. The check that we issued on May 31 has also been delivered to and negotiated by our customer. Therefore, one of the checks that we issued is not yet accounted for and we lack an explanation for why our policyholder did not receive that check.
  Again, we regret the circumstances that caused our customer not to receive the refund payment that we issued in December of 2023, and we are pleased that we have been able to complete the refund.

• Initial Complaint

  04/22/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Product Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  We entered into a condo insurance policy with Security First in January 2024. We had to pay $175 for a four point inspection. The inspector said "everything looked good". We also paid $1618.76 upfront for the full, annual premium.Shortly thereafter on 2/28 we received a notice of cancellation from Security First. They stated we had accordian piping and a lapse in coverage. We never had a lapse and sent proof to the broker. We also paid a plumber to replace the 3" of accordian piping and sent a copy of the receipt and a photo of the new piping to the broker. He forwarded it to Security First but they would not rescind the cancellation. The broker got us a policy with another carrier right away and said that we would get a refund of $1483.87 from Security First. We have not received anything from this company after several phone calls. We keep getting told "the check is in the mail", but it isn't. We would like our refund plus the interest on our money that they have had for three months. We are senior citizens on a fixed income and need this money.

  Business response

  05/06/2024

  Thank you for your note regarding the status of the premium refund for your cancelled policy. The agent of record submitted your request to cancel this policy and we promptly mailed the refund to your address in ************. A few days later, your agent inquired about the status of your refund check and we confirmed the mailing date and the mailing address with your agent. Two weeks later, your agent requested that we reissue the check and mail it to a new mailing address in ***********. By mistake, we did not issue this second check for another two weeks and then we mistakenly sent it to your original address in ************ once again. Another week later, we spoke with you about the status of the check and, upon learning that it had been misdirected once again, we promptly reissued the payment and sent it to your updated address in ***********, as requested.
  
  We apologize that our mistakes contributed to the delays in your receiving the policy refund check. Security First strives always to provide the finest service for our customers and we regret that our errors contributed to the delay. If you have not received the refund as we discussed with you most recently, please notify us of that fact as soon as practicable.
  
  

• Initial Complaint

  04/13/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Without having filed a claim, in 2022, my premiums went from $2200 roughly per year to $7500 for 2023. A new bill came today for 2024, and now the premium is $9198.81. This company is price gouging and engaging in fraudulent practices by including the potential of future stakeholder loss as an actual incurred present loss

  Business response

  04/26/2024

  We appreciate your concern about increases in your premium rate. Security First bases the rates that we must charge on our actual loss experience, and those rates have been approved by the ************** of Insurance Regulation. Fraud and unnecessary litigation are major factors that have contributed to our loss experience and, while we work hard to ensure that we pay only legitimate claims, and we have been forced to raise our rates as a result. Your premium rates for the past four years have been impacted by various factors and approved rate adjustments that we list below.
  
  Security First Insurance utilizes Insurance Risk Scoring regarding HO3 policies such as yours. If the insurance risk score adversely impacted your policy premium, we included in your renewal packet a Consumer Disclosure Notice providing insight into the factors that impacted the score.
  
  Two rate filings regarding HO3 policies impacted your renewal premium for May 25, 2022, through May 25, 2023. While the Office of Insurance Regulation approves our rate filings on an average,statewide level, we apply the changes to individual counties based on our experience with each. The relevant approved rate filings affecting rates in 2022-23 were:
  
                (*****%) Rate change effective June 28, 2021, on new business and July 19, 2021, on renewals. Filed and approved. Filing number: 21-017443.
  
                (12%) Rate change effective December 17, 2021, on new business and January 31, 2022, on renewals. Filed and approved. Filing number: 22-000339.
  
  Your premium for the renewal term May 25, 2023, through May 25, 2024, was affected by three additional annual rate filings, which were:
  
                (8.9%) Rate change effective July 28, 2022, on new business and September 11, 2022, on renewals. Filed and in use. Filing number: 22-022057.
  
                (3.7%) Rate change effective July 28, 2022, on new business and September 11, 2022, on renewals. Filed and in use. Filing number: 22-021323.
  
                (4.3%) Rate change effective January 8, 2023, on new business and January 29, 2023, on renewals.  Filed and in use.  Filing number 23-004296.
  
  The annual premium for the upcoming policy term of May 25, 2024, through May 25, 2025, is affected by an additional annual rate filing, which is:
  
                (9.6%) Rate change effective May 28, 2023, on new business and June 18, 2023, on renewals.  Filed and in use.  Filing number 23-024349.
  
  There *** be coverage options that will reduce your upcoming premium, such as our new HO3 Roof Coverage Endorsement. We suggest that you contact your agent of record for a complete policy review. Your agent can help you make appropriate coverage corrections and find new endorsements that *** be available to reduce premium costs.
  
  Your agent of record is:
  
  Str8line Group LLC
  *********************************************************************************************
  *************
  ************************************************
  
  Thank you for being a loyal customer of ******************************************************************. Our promise to you is that we will stand by our values and remain devoted to Florida storm after storm, year after year.

• Initial Complaint

  03/21/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Order Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  On January 25, 2024 we entered into a contract Policy # P015255012 with Security First Insurance company in ******************, ** through *********************, ************************* Insrance agent, ************, **, in the amount of $902.64. We advised that the house was uninsurance and is a fixer-upper. We needed insurance in order to apply for a home equality loan to remodel. We were told by the Agent, ********************* that an inspection was not needed. But it reality, Security First Insurance required one. We were not advised directly by Security First Insurance of the outcome of the inspection but was denied coverage on February 25, 2024. Expecting a full refund of $902.64 we were given a check for $682.64. They claim that we were insuranced for 1 month at a pro-rate of $220.00. I disagree. If we cancelled the policy I would except a pro-rate. The company said they have 90 days to deny coverage. They refuse to send me documentation of this company policy. Based on her overt actions and behaviors, ******************** from Security First was rude and lied about speaking with a manager. She refused to transfer me to a supervisor, give me the headquarters phone numbers or address, or tell me which state she was located. She talked over me with repeated this is their policy. After refusing to ****** she finally gave me an address of PO Box ****** ******* ** 30348-5651. To confirm this information, I called back and spoke to a a very pleasant, *******, she advised they were located in ************, **.

  Business response

  04/03/2024

  Security First regrets that our customer is not pleased with the reported interactions with our representative. We have attempted to discuss those experiences with our customer but have not yet been able to do so. Nonetheless, we are sorry to hear that our customer also does not agree that ******************************************* should have collected a premium for the insurance coverage that we provided for this dwelling between the date that we bound coverage for this property and the date that we found it necessary to cancel the policy. We did so because we insured the *********** until the date on which the cancellation became effective and our coverage remains in effect for the period of coverage. 
  
  Although we found that it was necessary to cancel the original policy as we did, the dwelling may still be eligible for coverage on our DF-1 policy form if our customer provides acceptable documentation that *************** have been completed in a satisfactory manner. 
  
  

• Initial Complaint

  12/28/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Order Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  On April 20, 2023, I filed a claim (#******) against my policy #P000031093 for roof damages. On May 6, 2023, I received a letter closing my claim based on the falsehood that I refused to allow an interior inspection of my home. In fact, I told the insurance company that I did not have any damage on the interior of my house and never refused to allow entry as I did not have a reason. After voicing my dissatification with their unprofessional conduct regarding his falsehood, ***************** decided that based on my hurricane deductible no money would be paid out on the claim. Subsequently, ***************** telephoned me and stated that they were mailing a check for $4,300 for hail damage. In October 2023, I checked the status of the payment and ***************** said they needed to add the mortgage company to the check. As of today, I have not received any payment from SFI. Most distrubing, SFI has committed False Reporting of Claims, Consumer FRAUD, Wire FRAUD and possible Embezzlement of Funds. Based on a recent Claims History Report, SFI falsely documented that they previously paid me $4,362 for HAIL damages (03-15;2022/Loss Date). However, SFI has never paid me any such payment in connection with HAIL damages to my roof. Likewise, I have never received the payment that was promised me in August 2023. As a retired "Federal" law enforcement officer for over 20-years, I will be reporting these criminal violations to the rightful Federal/State authorities for a full criminal investigation. In addition, I will be posting this information on social media to identify other victims suffering from the same criminal violations.

  Business response

  01/11/2024

  We regret that our customer is not completely satisfied with the resolution of this reported loss to the covered property. A roofer originally reported that the roof suffered hurricane damage and we confirmed by inspection that the roof damage could be repaired for a sum that did not exceed our customers deductible. After investigating further, we were able to ascertain that some roof damage was attributable to causes other than the hurricane in question and, after applying the lower, non-hurricane deductible, we provided our customer with an indemnity payment for the amount of the loss exceeding that deductible.Although we were unable to inspect the interior of the covered residence, we did not deny coverage regarding any portion of the reported loss. Nonetheless, we documented that fact in correspondence with our customer. Interior water leaking is sometimes associated with storm-related roof damage and it was our wish to inspect the interior spaces to document the absence or presence of such damage. We issued our settlement payment by check ****** on October 11, 2023, and reissued that payment on January 11, ****, at our customers request.

• Initial Complaint

  09/07/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  I filed a claim after hurricane Ian and at first the claim was denied. Spoke with the claims examiner that stated I was claiming things that were not repaired from my (first and only) claim back in 2017 from hurricane damage. I gave proof that things were repaired from 2017 and showed roofing quotes after Ian that there was storm damage. The claim was reopened on 8/23/2023 and I was told by the claim examiner that he would send out his roofing engineer. Called and emailed non stop and yesterday received a letter in the mail that my claim was RE- denied. I am 6 days away from them terminating my coverage after showing that the roof and property damage were hurricane related and completely separate and new to this hurricane. I was given no notice until a letter yesterday and when I called today person on the phone Albert was not able to tell me why it was denied other than stating it was denied due to previous information that was not enough for them. I have been with this insurance company for almost 10 years and have only put in 1 claim due to hurricane Irma. I have on my own made repairs to the home without putting claims in as to avoid being dropped and now am being dropped due to them not wanting to pay for hurricane damage.

  Business response

  09/19/2023

  Security First regrets that our customer has encountered these issues regarding the coverage afforded by this HO3 Homeowner insurance policy. However, we have carefully reviewed the facts regarding the condition of our customer’s home and have confirmed that the roof of this home no longer meets the requirements of our underwriting guidelines. Nonetheless, we will be glad to review the policy for reinstatement if our customer can provide satisfactory proof that both the flat and shingle portions of the roof of the home have been replaced.
  
  Earlier this year we reviewed information regarding the condition of this property and notified our customer by correspondence issued on May 09, 2023, that we would not renew the policy when it expired on September 12, 2023, because the condition of the roof did not meet our underwriting guidelines. A short while later, our customer made a claim that the roof of this home was damaged on September 28, 2022, as a result of Hurricane Ian. SFI investigated the reported loss but declined to extend coverage because we determined that the damage to our customer’s roof was the same as previous hurricane damage that SFI paid to repair in 2017. Although our customer provided additional photographic evidence regarding the loss after we declined to extend coverage, we carefully reviewed the evidence and confirmed that our decision was correct. We notified our customer of this decision by correspondence issued on August 22, 2023.
  
  As our customer claims that the roof damage that we paid for in 2017 was previously repaired and is not the same damage that now is present on the home, we have also requested that an engineering firm reinspect the property to determine further information about cause of the existing damage. We anticipate that the firm will soon provide a report regarding its findings and SFI will respond appropriately after reviewing our loss investigation at that time.

  Customer response

  10/01/2023

  
  Complaint: ********
  
  I am rejecting this response because:  You DID NOT give me money to replace my roof on the 2017 claim- the only roof you afforded to me was the attachment roof for the pool deck.  In fact I was told that the watermarks all over my house were not due to hurricane damage in 2017 and that it was probably due to the fact that I had plumbing in the attic.  You actually threatened me and said that if mold builds up because you have leaks in you plumbing you will not cover the mold problem because you had given me notice that it was not due to the hurricane but it was due to my plumbing.  As a new homeowner back then I had a plumber come in and inspect the plumbing/pipes in the attic.  They laughed at me and said there is nothing wrong with the plumbing that is all hurricane damage.  When I called to tell Security first to tell them, they first said well that is not true so we will not cover THE ROOF OF YOUR HOME.  I ask what I could do and they told me to get 3 quotes of how to fix the water marks on my ceiling and I did get 3 quotes and was told all they would have to do was spray paint the watermarks because there was no leak. The water marks were due to the storm.  Security first is now claiming they paid for my roof in 2017 when they did not and it is because they refused to back then knowing it needed replacement back then.  As a person who tries not to scam people I never used the door to door roof salesman and in fact had a quote for the roof prior to getting security firsts letter in the mail.  

  My claim was reopened once I showed proof of storm damage to the point where just LAST WEEK a Security First engineer came out to do a full 4 hour inspection on my roof because he does the inspections when a customer is getting a new roof approved by security first.  So why was he sent to  my house if my roof did not meet the requirements of a new roof? Because your agent Jim Smith reopened my claim to repair the roof once I showed proof it was due to storm damage and he said I will send my engineer out to get things started.  I am not sure what happened to Jim... not sure if he was fired or is no longer with the company but he is the one who sent  the engineer out because he agreed that security first was in fact responsible to pay for the roof replacement due to it being storm damage. 
  

  This company is lying and they know it.  It used to be a good reputable company but now it's just like all of the other insurance company's out to make millions on middle America's hardworking dime.  A roof is chump change to them but they were happy to take $4500 a year for me who one put 1 other claim in the last 9 years I had them insure me. 

  Sincerely,
  
  ***** ****

  Business response

  10/12/2023

  As SFI stated in the previous response to our customer, we recently requested that an engineering firm reinspect all the existing damage to our customer’s property. We have received that report and shared it with our customer. Based on the findings of the engineering firm, we have also requested that a general contracting firm reinspect the property regarding the scope of damage as reported by the engineers. We will review all the evidence produced by our additional investigation regarding this loss when we receive the contractor’s inspection report and respond appropriately. We apologize if our actions have caused our customer to believe that a new coverage decision was made before these re-inspections were requested, because that is not the case. We also regret that our customer may have construed our prior response to imply that SFI indemnified our customer for a full roof replacement following the 2017 Hurricane Irma claim as we did not do so, but paid instead for repair of wind-related damage. We are continuing our efforts to assure that our customer receives all of the indemnity that this policy and the law provide for the damage to the covered property and anticipate a prompt resolution. 

• Initial Complaint

  07/31/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Customer Service Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  I am still dealing with my claim 10 months later & on my 7th adjuster who will now not reply to my emails & my claim is still open as the contractors who were to make repairs made more damages while repairing! I have one last issue that needs to be addressed & can not get anyone to reply to my calls or emails over the last two months. I can not have an open claim on my upcoming renewal in October.

  Business response

  08/11/2023

  Security First Insurance and its preferred vendors repaired our customer’s home following Hurricane Ian, and we have addressed our customer’s recent issues arising from that storm and the subsequent repairs. We are working with our customer to provide coverage for additional repair items as required information regarding those items can be confirmed.
  SFI recognizes that in the wake of a significant catastrophic event there is often a fluctuating level of demand for the resources available to investigate and repair our customers’ storm-related damage. This situation may require that some claims be monitored for longer periods of time and that examiners be reassigned more often than normally occurs. We apologize for the inconvenience that these situations may have caused our customer and hope to provide our customer’s future home insurance needs, storm after storm, year after year. 

• Initial Complaint

  07/24/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Customer Service Issues

  Status:

  Resolved

  More info

  My HOA issued an assessment for emergency debris removal after hurricane IAN. Since my policies include LOSS ASSESSMENT coverage, I filed claims. Security First denied the claims stating that "Trees plants and shrubs" are not covered. When I advised them that the claims were not for the loss of trees, plants and shrubs but rather for debris removal which is covered and requested that they reconsider, Security First ceased responding. Many attempts for an explanation have gone unanswered leaving me no option other than mediation. Ignoring requests for an explanation should not be an option. I do not want anything that I am not entitled to by the terms of my policy, but would like a satisfactory explanation for why debris removal is not covered before proceeding to the next step in the resolution process.

  Business response

  08/08/2023

  SFI has determined to extend coverage for our customer's loss assessment and we have issued appropriate indemnity payment to our customer. We appreciate our customer’s concern regarding this issue and regret that we did not initially recognize that we had decided the underlying and determinative issue regarding coverage for the loss assessment on the basis of our misunderstanding regarding the nature of the debris that resulted in the removal efforts that are the subject of the loss assessment in question.
  Although SFI has been correct in its position that this policy does not cover the removal of debris from trees and shrubs, because the trees and shrubs are not covered property when damaged by the peril of hurricane, we have learned that, contrary to our understanding that the debris in question was only from trees and shrubs, the debris cleanup may have included debris from other items that were directly damaged by the hurricane and also constituted covered property. With that new insight regarding the factual basis for the loss assessment we reversed our initial decision and extended coverage.
  We value our customer’s relationship with SFI and hope to provide our customer’s residential insurance needs through storm after storm, year after year. 

  Customer response

  08/10/2023

  After weeks of being ignored, I filed this complaint.  Less than 24 hours later (Thank you BBB!) I heard from the insurance company who agreed to review their denial and 2 weeks after that I had checks in my hand.  My thanks also to SFI for listening to my position and reversing their initial denial

• Initial Complaint

  04/18/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Customer Service Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Homeowner policy cancelled I have been notified by Security First that my policy will be cancelled effective 4/25/2023 because "Roof condition does not meet our underwriting guidelines". (copy attached) I have looked for and tried to get a copy of Security First’s underwriting guidelines for roofs but have been unsuccessful. I called Security First customer service to get the guidelines for roof underwriting and the most information I could get is that it has to do with the condition of the roof. I have had Security First homeowners’ insurance on my home since 2008 and have never submitted a claim to them. In 2022, Florida passed a statute covering homeowners' insurance cancellations that occur because of roof age and/or condition, and I am enclosing a copy of that statute. The statute states that insurance companies cannot cancel homeowners’ insurance policies for roof condition and/or age, even if the roof is 15 years or older, if the policy holder provides the insurance company with an inspection report that indicates the roof has 5 yrs. useful life. I had the roof inspected and the inspection report states that the roof still has 5 years of useful life. It is a detailed inspection with pictures and includes the permit for the initial installation of the roof in 2005. (copy attached) I am also attaching copies of the bill of sale for the initial roof installation (architectural laminate shingles) and county inspector approval report from 2005. I believe that Security First uses the term “underwriting guidelines” without defining the specifics of those guidelines which would include age of the roof, so they would not have to follow the Florida state statute concerning cancellation of homeowner’s policies based of roof issues. This thwarts the policy holder’s ability to remediate the cancellation by having an inspection which certifies that the roof has 5 years of useful life. Security First stated to me that they have never inspected the roof on my property.

  Business response

  04/24/2023

  Our underwriting guidelines for the HO3 policy require the following conditions, which we compare below with the results of our underwriting investigation:
  
  Roofs must be in an acceptable condition with no existing damage, excessive wear and with at least (5) years of useful life remaining.
  
  Our customer provided a roof certification form that revealed multiple water stains under the roof deck indicating existing leaks.  
  
  In general, the insured property must show pride of ownership exhibited by property in good repair.
  
  The roof certification report that our customer provided also revealed signs of delayed maintenance in the form of rotted facia, peeling paint, foliage making contact with home, and mildew. 
  
  If our customer makes appropriate repairs, we may deem the home to be eligible for coverage under the DF3-DO or DF1 form with Security First Insurance pending New Business underwriting guidelines.

  Customer response

  04/30/2023

  
  Complaint: ********
  
  I have had Security First insurance homeowner’s insurance for my home since 2007 – for over 15 years.  I never had an inquiry or concern from them about the condition of my property or roof.  As far as I know, no one from Security First Insurance has ever been on my property, or hired someone to inspect my roof, attic, or home. So, I was surprised to receive a letter from Security First Insurance on 12/22/2022 stating: "Roof condition does not meet our underwriting guidelines".  I had a roof inspection by a licensed inspector on 2/18/23.  He took close-up photographs of the laminate architectural shingles and took 15 pictures of the roof from various angles, including from above the house. The pictures show no missing or damaged shingles, and no excessive wear. The inspector also spent considerable time in the attic crawl space examining the attic and underside of the roof decking, and then examined all ceilings inside the house. Upon completion, the inspector stated there were no leaks anywhere in the roofing system, specifically in the “Attic/underside of the decking” and “Interior ceilings” You have a copy of that inspection report with these findings. The inspector’s report showed three pictures of minor stains in the roof underdeck that were apparently caused by rainwater seepage into the wood of the roof underdeck during the hurricanes years ago.  The inspector’s report states that there are no signs of leakage, even in the area directly below these roof underdeck stains in the attic or on the ceiling below. The inspector’s report had two pictures of a small section (2 feet) of the facia that has damaged wood.  Comcast cables are fastened to the facia to the left of that section. It appears that the cable connection pulls the wood out and away from the house which make it vulnerable to the weather.  We have replaced that small piece of wood several times over the years. There are no other such damaged sections to the facias for the rest of the house. That small wood deterioration is inconsequential and immaterial to the overall functionally of the roof and did not impact the inspector’s assessment that the roof has 5 useful years remaining. Security First Insurance is making an unsubstantiated assertion that there is an existing leak in the roof - even though the recent report by a certified inspector states there is no evidence of a leak at all, and the roof still has 5 years of useful life. According to the Florida statute quoted in my initial complaint, my insurance policy should not have been cancelled. Security First also has some company-generated ambiguous and subjective terms in their ‘roof underwriting guidelines’ unrelated to the roof, as they are allowed to do.  But these vague property-wide terms (“pride of ownership” “good repair”) should not take precedence over a 2022 Florida statute that clearly states Security First cannot cancel a policy if a licensed inspection report confirms the roof is in acceptable condition and has 5 years of useful life.Security First says that our home is not in good repair, and they cite some peeling paint and mildew, but they have never stepped foot on my property, or else they would have seen that we do maintenance repairs and painting regularly. Other older houses on a barrier beach island three blocks from the Atlantic Ocean have occasional mildew or paint peeling from exposure to dampness and salt water.
  We believe Security First included these property-wide terms in their “roof underwriting policy” so they can cancel insurance on any older home that has a roof over 15 years old, thereby skirting the Florida statute (cited in the initial complaint).  Any need for a minor repair can now be used to cancel a homeowners’ insurance policy, even if an inspection of the roof finds it to be in acceptable condition with 5 remaining years of useful life.

  We ask the insurance company to reconsider their decision and we request the BBB to not simply acquiesce to the insurer’s false assertions and misleading characterization regarding upkeep on our home.
  
  
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ******* *******

  Business response

  05/10/2023

  We appreciate our customer’s concern regarding the decision not to renew this coverage on the same policy form and we have tried to address that concern by offering alternative policies for insuring the property. To that end, we have also requested that the agent of record discuss the available options directly with our customer. On December 20, 2022, SFI offered quotes to our customer for a DF1 policy P011216704 and a DF3-DO policy P011217134 and on May 2, 2023, we requested that the agent of record reach out to explain in detail the DF1 and DF3-DO policies and the options available to our customer with those policy forms.
  Our customer’s understanding of the Florida law that applies to our underwriting decision regarding renewal of this policy is incomplete and mistaken in part and SFI’s actions have complied with the requirements of the law in every way, notwithstanding our customer's contrary beliefs. Significantly, the inspection report relied upon by our customer was not prepared by an authorized inspector, and the policy itself, having been issued or renewed prior to July 1, 2022, is not subject to the statute that our customer has discussed. Moreover, as previously explained, SFI did not base the non-renewal decision solely on the age of our customer’s roof.
  Again, SFI would like to retain our customer relationship and there are options available that will allow us to provide continued coverage for this property under alternative policy forms.

• Initial Complaint

  04/10/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Customer Service Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  We contacted Security First regarding damage to our property during Hurrican Ian. Security First sent out Joseph D****** to take photos and notes about the damage. The claims adjuster representing Security First, Courtney Lewis, told us that Security First would pay for ANY damage and we didn't have to worry about anything other than the deductible. ******* ******* were chosen by Security First to do the roof and Fowcon to do fascia and soffit work. Then, it was changed to ******* doing the roof, soffit and fascia and Fowcon any other needed repairs. In the meantime, Courtney L**** left and we were given an "advocate" named Andrea who was trying to get up to speed with the work that was done and what wasn't done. Our paperwork and photos had been put under a pile of other paperwork. She lasted a couple of months and the paperwork and photos was put under a pile again, and now, there's an "advocate" named John who found laughter in our misfortune with the roofers and the work that hadn't been completed. A new Security First claims adjuster, Alex, has taken over the claim now and I have been "discussing" with him about the fascia and soffit. He wanted to pay ******* under $300 to paint the damaged fascia and nothing with the soffit. Alex told me that I had to find a company to fix the remaining problem if ******* wouldn't do it. ******* gave them another quote with photos and he denied the claim again. ******* doesn't want to do anything other than paint over the damaged fascia and leave the soffit because it's siding. Alex doesn't seem to understand how bad painting a damaged area looks or he thinks that we're not worthy of having nice things. He feels that it's not damaged, just wear and tear. Alex initially told us that he would honor the quote that *******, or any other company gave, in order to get our house completed. This did not happen and we are back to square one. We want the job finished completely and Security First to pay for it!

  Business response

  05/05/2023

  We appreciate that our customer values the appearance of the insured property and we have worked with our vendors and our customer to meet our commitment to place the storm-damaged property back as it was prior to the storm, subject to the coverage afforded by the policy. After carefully reviewing the status of this matter, we have determined that the best resolution for our customer is to issue an additional indemnity payment for the portion of damaged property that is the subject of concern in order that our customer may have complete discretion regarding the remaining repairs. In issuing the payment, SFI has fully indemnified our customer for the covered storm damage resulting from the reported hurricane loss. 

  Business response

  05/12/2023

  We have explained to our customer that SFI issued a monetary indemnity payment for all of the damage that remained to be addressed by the contractor that our customer agreed to allow to do the initial repair work. We also have made clear that, should the reasonable cost to complete the work that we paid for exceed the amount that SFI has paid, we will consider a request for a supplemental payment for that work. As mentioned, our customer reported a new claim with a different date of loss but relating to the same damage to the fascia that SFI has paid for. Our investigation of the new loss report resulted in the conclusion that the later reported damage is substantially identical to the unrepaired damage from Hurricane Ian for which we already indemnified our customer. Accordingly, SFI has declined to extend coverage regarding the second reported loss. If our customer provides documentation that the indemnity already issued is not adequate to pay for the repairs for which it was issued, or that the there is additional damage that was not addressed in the more recently reported claim, SFI will respond appropriately. Thank you.

  Customer response

  05/16/2023

  
  Complaint: ********
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  We only agreed to let the original contractor do the roof and additional repair work as a result of the initial claims adjuster telling us that EVERYTHING would be taken care of. Even the sales rep from the roofing company told us that EVERYTHING would be done by their company until the initial claims adjuster told us another company was doing the fascia and then switched back to the original roofer.

  The only reason this new claims adjuster doesn't know this is because he came late to the party. Our paperwork has been pushed aside on several occasions and we keep getting new "advocates" and claims adjusters. He even admitted that Security First dropped the ball.

  As for the second claim, there was a difference between the way the fascia looked after the wind storm on April 30th, but the claims adjuster does not believe us and his field adjuster sided with him.

  The bottom line here is that Security First did not keep their word about repair completion. They turned down the quote by the roofer to repair the fascia and told us to find someone local. Although we are now looking for a vendor, I know that any estimate or quote we send Security First will be automatically turned down by this claims adjuster in order to save money for Security First. He is not concerned about devaluing our property, but would rather see some sloppy paint job over the damaged area instead of paying to repair it properly. As he told me "we don't pay for rot" which is why they won't repair or pay for the damaged fascia.

  In the end, Security First will get their way, and we will wind up paying out of pocket because of this incompetence. 
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ******* ***********

*Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business. ↩