Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     782750
Filing Accepted:  9/13/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
BLUE CRAB KEY CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION   First Name  
Street Address * 5201-5481 BLUE CRAB CIRCLE
City, State Zip * BOKEELIA, FL 33922
Email Address * BLUMCM9@GMAIL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   BLUE CRAB KEY CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION   First Name   PHOEBE
Policy # * AMC-36287-03 Claim #* CLM41904
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* WISE First Name * PHOEBE Initial S
Street Address* 5811 PELICAN BAY BLVD SUITE 650
City, State Zip* NAPLES , FLORIDA 34108
Email Address * PWISE@HAHNLAW.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   AMERICAN COASTAL INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 12968
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* SYLVIA BOLAR, TROY MCDERMOTT, ALEXANDER ZESCH
Type of Insurance * Commercial Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Unfair Trade Practice
Claim Denial
Other : Misprepresentation
* Statutory provision(s) which the insurer allegedly violated.
 
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.
624.155(1)(b)(3) Except as to liability coverages, failing to promptly settle claims, when the obligation to settle a claim has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage.
626.9541(1)(i)(2) A material misrepresentation made to an insured or any other person having an interest in the proceeds payable under such contract or policy, for the purpose and with the intent of effecting settlement of such claims, loss, or damage under such contract or policy on less favorable terms than those provided in, and contemplated by, such contract or policy.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information.
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.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g) Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h) Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(j) Altering or amending an insurance adjuster’s report without: (I) Providing a detailed explanation as to why any change that has the effect of reducing the estimate of the loss was made; and (II) Including on the report or as an addendum to the report a detailed list of all changes made to the report and the identity of the person who ordered each change; or (III) Retaining all versions of the report, and including within each such version, for each change made within such version of the report, the identity of each person who made or ordered such change;
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Loss Payment: In the event of loss or damage covered by this Coverage Form, at our option, we will either: 1) Pay the value of lost or damaged property; 2) Pay the cost of repairing or replacing the lost or damage property, subject to (b) below; 3) Take all or any part of the property at an agreed or appraised value; or 4) Repair, rebuild or replace the property with other property of like kind and quality, subject to (b) below. We may adjust the losses with the owners of lost or damaged property if other than you. If we pay the owners, such payment will satisfy your claim against us for the owners’ property. We will pay for covered loss or damage to Covered Property within 40 days after we receive the sworn proof of loss, if you have complied with all of the terms of this Coverage Part and: 1) We have reached an agreement with you on the amount of loss; or 2) An appraisal award has been made.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

On or about September 28, 2022, while the insurance policy was in full force and effect, Hurricane Ian passed through the Lee County, Florida with NOAA speeds ranging between 141 mph and 161 mph as reported by NOAA, causing substantial damage, including water intrusion, to the Property, including the interior and exterior of all covered buildings. On October 1, 2022, Blue Crab Key Condominium Association (“Blue Crab”) promptly and timely notified the AmCoastal Insurance Company (“AmCoastal”) of its loss (the “Claim”) through its third-party claims adjuster—AmRisc. Sedwick was then assigned to the claim. Due to the extensive nature of the claim and size of the Property, Blue Crab hired Dean Cavalieri of Accurate Insurance Management Services and William Schulte, a certified general contractor to assist it with the loss and Claim. On December 15, 2022, AmCoastal issued a $100,000 advance on the Claim. In January, the adjuster advised that he was going to request another $1,000,000 in advanced funds for the Claim due to the extensive damage to the Property. However, on January 10, 2023, AmCoastal only provided a $450,000 advance. This advance did not even cover the emergency mitigation performed by ServePro which totaled $958,600.00 (not included Overhead & Profit of approximately $191,600.00). Over the next two years, the parties continued to adjust the claim. Blue Crab Key provided all documentation requested and complied with requirements under the Policy related to cooperation and adjustment. In fact, Blue Crab Key, through Bill Schulte and Dean Cavalieri, has provided copies of all estimates, invoices and copies of checks related to the repairs at the Property. AmCoastal hired DBA Construction Consultants (“DBA”) to inspect the Property and prepare a report identifying the scope and amount of damage. On December 14, 2022, DBA requested additional documentation, which Blue Crab promptly provided. Thereafter, in March 2023, AmCoastal provided Blue Crab with DBI’s report and an undisputed payment in the amount of $988,667.12. However, to date AmCoastal still has not paid for all items identified on DBI’s report—despite the funds being clearly owed as identified by AmCoastal’s own expert. AmCoastal hired Engineering Systems, Inc. (“ESI”) to also inspect the Property and prepare a cause and origin report. However, the report was severely flawed. For example, the ESI report classifies Hurricane Ian as a Category 3 storm and identifies NOAA’s report as the source of that information. NOAA’s report identified wind speeds in knots not miles per hour. The conversion to mph leaves no doubt that Hurricane Ian was just 2 mph shy of a Category 5 storm when it made landfall at Cayo Costa, Florida--- just a few miles from Blue Crab. ESI also attempted to shift the burden of claim adjustment onto Blue Crab by stating that it did not address Building M because Blue Crab did not yet have “structural repair drawings.” However, AmCoastal---not Blue Crab is required to adjust the loss. Blue Crab simply needs to provide documentation requested--- and not proposed repairs. ESI also failed to consider Florida Building Code from the requisite time period that each building was completed. It also ignored Florida Building Code’s requirement for life safety----- many of the windows that no longer open or close property are “exit” windows to meet the code’s safety requirement. ESI also failed to determine whether parts for the windows are still available—many of which are not. Blue Crab advised AmCoastal of the clear deficiencies in ESI’s report---yet to date, AmCoastal continues to rely on the ESI report as a basis for the partial claim denial—despite, Blue Crab identifying the blatantly incorrect information set forth in ESI’s report. ESI used incorrect wind speeds, failed to indicate or determine whether parts to repair the windows are still available (Blue Crab has identified which parts are available and which are not and provided that information to AmCoastal---however, not all parts for any window are available), failed to use the correct building code for each building, and failed to address the window’s life saving requirements as required by Florida Building Code and Florida law. Thereafter, AmCoastal hired Thomas Wareham to inspect the Property. Mr. McDermott characterized the inspection as a third-party construction consultant to address the damage to the windows and building envelope. However, it turns out that the inspection was not a neutral third-party analysis of the window claim. Instead, AmCap hired Wareham Construction Inc. to simply prepare an Xactimate estimate for the cost to repair damage identified by ESI. He did not perform his own independent analysis of the claim. This additional inspection wasted months of time. In March 2024, AmCoastal then issued payment a supplemental payment to Blue Crab Key in the amount of $1,039,001.67 based on Thomas Wareham’s estimate. However, Thomas Wareham’s estimate failed to include certain items identified by DBI. Accordingly, to date, there are still items identified in either DBI’s report and Thomas Wareham’s report for which AmCoastal has not paid Blue Crab. All items identified on DBI and Wareham’s report must be paid. AmCoastal must also comply with 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(j) and (1) Pay the value of lost or damaged property; (2) Pay the cost of repairing or replacing the lost or damage property, subject to (b) below; (3) Take all or any part of the property at an agreed or appraised value; or (4) Repair, rebuild or replace the property with other property of like kind and quality, subject to (b) below. On March 7, 2024, AmCoastal then sent its final coverage letter maintaining its partial denial of the claim. AmCoastal based the remainder of its claim denial on ESI’s determination that “damages to the concrete columns on buildings A, E, & H were a result of wear & tear as a result of long-term moisture exposure which is not covered under this windstorm policy.” On April 1, 2024, Blue Crab Key submitted a partial Sworn Proof of Loss in the amount of $8,969,028.21. Steven Kahn also inspected the Property to address AmCoastal’s refusal to cover the windows and doors which required total replacement. To date, Blue Crab Keys continues to find window leaks during hard rain. Videos and documentation of the leaks have been provided to AmCoastal, which AmCoastal has ignored. Additionally, since April 1, 2024, Blue Crab Key has incurred additional costs, bringing the cost of the Claim to $10,644,844.92. For example, LCEC had to run new underground lines, there were additional electrical repairs, and additional costs associated with the sewer, irrigation and repairs to the pool house, fencing and equipment. Blue Crab Key continues to provide all invoices, copies of check and other documentation to support its Claim. Mr. Schulte has also provided itemized spreadsheets for each building. In fact, Blue Crab continues to resend documentation and proofs of repairs to AmCoastal over and over again. However, each time a new adjuster or attorney is assigned, its as if the documentation disappears and AmCoastal requests the same documents all over again. This has significantly delayed the claim and demonstrates a failure to properly adjust the claim or set standards for an investigation. To date, AmCoastal has paid Blue Crab Key $4,900,809.11 towards the $10,644,844.92 owed. Specifically, AmCoastal has issued the following payments: 12-15-22 Ck# 29883 $ 100,000.00 01-10-23 Ck# 30099 $ 450,000.00 03-29-23 Ck# 31354 $ 988,667.12 06-09-23 CK# 32526 $ 913,449.86 07-21-23 CK# 33246 $ 492,096.72 09-21-23 Ck#34491 $ 181,013.95 10-17-23 Ck# 34932 $ 262,193.82 03-10-24 Ck# 36859 $ 1,039,001.67 05-09-24 Ck#37378 $ 474,385.97 Accordingly, $5,744,035.81 remains due and owing on the underlying claim itself. However, AmCoastal has failed to pay interest on the above referenced payments--- despite the clear requirement under Florida law to do so. AmCoastal has also failed to pay the entire scope of loss identified by its own experts without providing an explanation as to why it has withheld payment for those items. Additionally, AmCoastal continues to rely on ESI’s report despite its clear deficiencies, as explained above. The conduct described above clearly demonstrates that AmCoastal is not acting in the best interest of Blue Crab and is simply trying to put its own interests before those of its insured. i.e. refusing to accept proper documentation of claim, Sworn Proofs of Loss, requesting the same documentation over and over again, relying on faulty reports (even after the blatant mistakes have been pointed out to AmCoastal), and failing to pay all funds due when it becomes reasonably known that the money is owed and the loss incurred. There is no dispute that Blue Crab is entitled to payment for damage identified in the DBI and Thomas Wareham reports. Yet, Blue Crab hasn’t received full payment. Additionally, Florida law requires that AmCoastal pay interest on all payments not timely made. None of the payments were timely made and interest is owed for all funds previously paid--- and all funds which remain outstanding. The lack of communication and oversight during the claims process demonstrates AmCoastal’s failure to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of the claim, failure to take the insured interest into account and has deliberately refused to settle the claim when it became reasonably clear to do so. AmCoastal can cure this violation by paying the remainder of the total loss and damage owed under the Policy ($5,744,035.81) plus interest on the $5,744,035.81 ($846,269.46) and interest on all checks previously paid ($276,662.30). The total amount required to cure this violation is $6,866,967.57.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
azesch@amcoastal.com 11-07-2024 American Coastal Insurance Company (“AmCoastal”) has received the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations referenced above (“Notice”). This correspondence constitutes AmCoastal’s response to the Notice. As a preliminary matter, AmCoastal objects to the libelous and defamatory nature of the allegations in the Notice. AmCoastal rejects these false allegations and hereby reserves all rights, including legal action. The Notice amounts to nothing more than the Insured disagreeing with the outcome of AmCoastal’s investigation and valuation of this Hurricane Ian Claim. AmCoastal has thoroughly investigated the Claim, communicated consistently with the Insured and its representatives throughout, and paid all undisputed amounts owed. AmCoastal has not paid the Insured the amount it is claiming because that amount is not remotely supported by AmCoastal’s investigation or the documentation the Insured has provided. In turn, the Insured has refused to acknowledge and substantively respond to AmCoastal’s positions regarding various coverage questions, Policy limits, damage causation, and valuation, and even refused to acknowledge the applicable deductible in its unreasonable demands. The Notice is invalid on its face because it fails to strictly comply with the requirements of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. First, the Notice does not comply with the requirement of Section 614.155(3)(b)(4) to refer to specific policy language relevant to the alleged violation. Instead, the Notice quotes language from the Policy’s form CP 00 17 060 7 – Condominium Association Coverage Form, even though the language quoted is amended in form AC 01 25 06 21 – Florida Changes. The Notice also does not comply with the requirement of Section 624.155(3)(b)(2.) to include the facts and circumstances giving rise to the purported violation of the quoted Policy language. For example, the Notice quotes Policy language requiring AmCoastal to issue payment within 40 days of the Insured providing a proof of loss when there is a written agreement as to the amount of the loss or there is an appraisal award. Neither occurred in this Claim, nor does the Notice allege otherwise; therefore, the Notice does not allege a violation even of the inapplicable Policy language quoted. The Notice also does not comply with the requirement imposed by Section 614.155(3)(b)(1) and (2) that it “state with specificity … [t]he statutory provision, including the specific language of the statute, which the authorized insurer allegedly violated” and “[t]he facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.” The Notice lists nine (!) statutory provisions allegedly violated but contains no specific details whatsoever that would amount to a violation of these provisions. The Notice lists Section 624.155(1)(b)(1.), Florida Statutes, but does not explain how AmCoastal failed to attempt to settle the Claim in good faith. In fact, the Insured’s allegations demonstrate that AmCoastal continued to investigate the Claim thoroughly and fairly. The fact that AmCoastal did not pay the Insured what it and its contractor wanted, by itself, does not amount to an unfair trade practice. AmCoastal denies that it violated this statutory provision. The Notice lists Section 624.155(1)(b)(3.), Florida Statutes, but does not discuss which separate portions of the Policy would have been implicated in this Claim, let alone how AmCoastal failed to settle under one coverage portion in order to influence settlements under another. AmCoastal denies that it violated this statutory provision. The Notice lists Section 626.9541(1)(i)(2), Florida Statutes, but contains no explanation whatsoever of what facts or policy provisions AmCoastal allegedly misrepresented. AmCoastal denies that it violated this statutory provision. The Notice lists Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), Florida Statutes, but does not list a single communication AmCoastal did not acknowledge promptly. AmCoastal denies that it violated this statutory provision. The Notice lists Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), Florida Statutes, but does not explain how AmCoastal could have denied the Claim without conducting a reasonable investigation. In fact, even the Notice alleges that AmCoastal issued payments and thus did not deny the Claim at all and that AmCoastal conducted a thorough investigation involving multiple inspections and independent experts. AmCoastal denies that it violated this statutory provision. The Notice lists Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), Florida Statutes, but references multiple coverage determination communications and does not allege how these communications failed to explain a claim denial or compromise offer. AmCoastal did not deny the Claim. AmCoastal denies that it violated this statutory provision. The Notice lists Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g), Florida Statutes, but goes on to list multiple instances of AmCoastal requesting information from the Insured and does not explain how these requests were untimely. AmCoastal denies that it violated this statutory provision. The Notice lists Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h), Florida Statutes, but does not detail what explanations the Insured purportedly needed to justify AmCoastal’s information requests. AmCoastal requested information that, if provided, may have supported the Insured’s persistent demands for additional payments. When such information was provided, AmCoastal reviewed it promptly and issued corresponding payments if appropriate. Otherwise, the Insured simply submitted the same information repeatedly even after AmCoastal explained why the information did not support additional payments. AmCoastal denies that it violated this statutory provision. Finally, the Notice lists Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(j), Florida Statutes, which relates to insurers altering or amending adjuster reports. This subsection does not apply to this Claim because it was not part of the statute when this Claim was reported. In fact, the subsection did not become law until nearly a year after the Insured reported the Claim. The Insured’s counsel’s inclusion of this inapplicable statute in the Notice is unfortunately characteristic of the Insured’s positions during this Claim, which have included other instances of relying on inapplicable statutes, misunderstanding or mischaracterization of Policy provisions, and refusal to acknowledge AmCoastal’s detailed explanations of why documents or information the Insured submitted did not support additional payments. AmCoastal denies that it violated this statutory provision. In addition to being facially invalid by failing to support any statutory or Policy violations, the Notice contains myriad nonsensical and nonfactual allegations. The Notice explains that the Insured retained public adjuster Accurate Insurance Management Services (“AIMS”) and general contractor William Schulte (“Schulte”) to assist it with the Claim. Unfortunately, neither entity has helped bring this Claim to a reasonable resolution. AIMS, instead of performing the standard public adjuster task of preparing a detailed repair estimate of covered damage, prepared a document consisting entirely of Schulte bid items, thus adding zero value to the Claim process. The document, while masquerading as an estimate, is sloppily prepared – for example, it charges different prices for the exact same item and charges equipment charges related to repair work but no corresponding repair work – and grossly inflates equipment charges, among other things. Moreover, AIMS failed to effectively facilitate communications between the Insured and AmCoastal. Despite many lengthy phone conversations with AmCoastal, AIMS was unable to acknowledge AmCoastal’s well-reasoned and investigation-supported coverage determinations and valuations and instead instilled in the Insured unrealistic expectations of a monetary windfall. It must be noted that AIMS has a personal interest in inflating this Claim due to its percentage-based compensation. Pursuant to the contract submitted to AmCoastal, it appears that AIMS has been paid more than half of a million dollars in connection with this Claim already. The Insured’s most recent demands would more than double this amount. Similarly, Schulte has not helped bring this Claim to a reasonable conclusion because Schulte has performed work in the least efficient manner imaginable and shamelessly overcharged for its work and equipment rentals. For example, Schulte has charged a preposterous 30 days of lift fees – more than $15,000 – for each building. Rather than rent a lift once to perform all exterior work on a building at one time, Schulte included equipment charges – in full days – separately for work on roofs, fascia, soffits, gutters, windows, flashing, and siding. This is not reasonable. Although the Insured is free to hire any contractor of its choosing, AmCoastal owes only for the reasonable cost of repairs. A reasonable cost of repairs requires a reasonable measure of efficiency. Schulte has also charged the Insured overhead and profit on mitigation work performed by another contractor. Overhead and profit is not owed on mitigation work because it does not require coordination among trades. Mitigation work is generally destructive and necessarily occurs before other trades combine to rebuild the damaged property, which is exactly what occurred in this Claim. In short, Schulte is overcharging the Insured – and thus AmCoastal. Importantly, though, AmCoastal has already paid the Insured more than the sum of all Schulte invoices. AmCoastal acknowledges that the Insured has cooperated with its Claim investigation and responded to requests for information and documents. AmCoastal has reviewed and responded to all information and documentation the Insured has submitted; however, the Insured has refused to accept that the information and documentation do not support additional payments in the amount the Insured wishes. Accordingly, AmCoastal rejects the Notice’s characterization of AmCoastal’s requests and the Insured’s responses that “its [sic] as if the documentation disappears and AmCoastal requests the same documents all over again.” AmCoastal certainly did not request that the Insured submit the same documents repeatedly. AmCoastal requested documents to support the Insured’s demands for additional millions of dollars in payments, and the Insured submitted the same documents repeatedly, even after AmCoastal advised the Insured that the documents did not support additional payments. The Insured did so because it refused to acknowledge or accept AmCoastal’s determinations with regard to the documents. After a mediation conference in August 2024, AmCoastal’s counsel requested that the Insured submit a final demand package, to ensure that nothing was missed and to allow the Insured another opportunity to support its Claim. The Insured submitted no documents AmCoastal had not already reviewed and addressed with the Insured or AIMS. The Notice’s allegation that AmCoastal has not paid the full amount indicated by DBA Construction Consultants is demonstrably false. Next, the Notice attempts to discredit as “severely flawed” a report prepared by independent engineering firm ESI during AmCoastal’s Claim investigation. The Insured’s critique of the ESI report is based on an inspection by a Steven Kahn, who has not prepared a report for AmCoastal’s review. The Notice claims that ESI’s report misidentified the strength of Hurricane Ian as category 3. This is false, as the report clearly identifies the storm as category 4. Next, the Notice faults ESI for “fail[ing] to consider Florida Building Code from the requisite time period that each building was completed,” but does not explain the relevance of long-outdated Building Code provisions that do not apply to current-day repairs. The Notice also claims that ESI ignored life safety requirements relating to windows being able to open but does not acknowledge that AmCoastal is not responsible for ensuring that the Insured’s decades-old windows comply with current Building Codes – AmCoastal is responsible to pay for damage caused by covered perils. Importantly, the Notice does not mention the portions of the ESI report that are relevant to AmCoastal’s coverage determination, specifically the causes of the condition of the windows. The Insured’s claim that every single of the decades-old windows was damaged during Hurricane Ian defies reason. AmCoastal again rejects the Insured’s declaration that over $5.7 million remains due on this Claim. First, that amount does not even consider the Insured’s hurricane deductible of nearly $835,000. Moreover, AmCoastal has provided the Insured a detailed explanation of why there is no support for a demand in that amount. AmCoastal also rejects the Insured’s demand that it pay statutory interest. First, the relevant statute does not apply to commercial policies covering property exceeding 10,000 square feet. Second, the Insured’s counsel, again, relies on a version of the statute that was not in effect at the time the Claim was reported and thus does not apply. Next, AmCoastal made a timely initial payment and made all other payments pursuant to supplemental claims in the time required. Finally, to the extent AmCoastal’s payments were not timely, the delay was excused by factors beyond AmCoastal’s control. The allegations in the Notice do not amount to violations of any statutory requirements or Policy provisions by AmCoastal. Instead, they boil down to nothing more than the Insured refusing to accept the results of AmCoastal’s investigation of this Claim. The Insured, AIMS, Schulte, and the Insured’s counsel have consistently refused to acknowledge even the most basic explanations of why AmCoastal does not accept the Insured’s demands, including the fact that the Policy’s hurricane deductible by definition reduces the Insured’s recovery. It has become increasingly apparent that the Insured, AIMS, Schulte, and the Insured’s counsel will not accept any resolution of this Claim that reasonably and realistically reflects damage caused by Hurricane Ian, or the coverages and limits available under the Policy. Instead, the Insured, AIMS, Schulte, and counsel appear to view the Claim as an opportunity to exploit AmCoastal by making utterly unsupported demands and then threatening AmCoastal with litigation and allegations of bad faith when AmCoastal refuses the demands. The Insured’s counsel’s obscene demand for over $2.3 million in attorney fees in the Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation filed October 17, 2024, speaks volumes. In summary, the Notice is invalid because it does not meet the specificity requirements of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. To the extent the Notice contains allegations capable of being responded to, AmCoastal categorically denies the allegations. While this response is meant to be comprehensive, it is based upon the limited information provided in the Notice and the information known to date. This response or any act or failure to act on the part of AmCoastal or any agent or representative of AmCoastal should not be construed as a waiver of any rights or defenses, including but not limited to proper notice and service by the complainants, available to it by contract or at law as all such rights and defenses are hereby specifically reserved.
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.

Before submitting a Notice using this system, please verify that all text has been entered correctly and completely. Once the Notice has been submitted, the text cannot be changed or deleted.




DFS-10-363
Rev. 10/14/2008