Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     784299
Filing Accepted:  9/24/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
ORTIZ   First Name   SHERLY YADIRA SOTO
Street Address * 112 MILESTONE DRIVE
City, State Zip * HAINES CITY, FL 33844
Email Address * STEPHANY@DUBOFFLAWFIRM.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   ORTIZ   First Name   SHERLY YADIRA SOTO
Policy # * P000104046 Claim #* 244921
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* DUBOFF First Name * KENNETH Initial R.
Street Address* 680 NE 127TH ST
City, State Zip* NORTH MIAMI , FL 33161
Email Address * STEPHANY@DUBOFFLAWFIRM.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10117
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* MATTHEW D. O'BRIEN, ESQ., BRANDI COMPTON,
Type of Insurance * Commercial Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
Claim Delay
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Unfair Trade Practice
* 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)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue.
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)(i) Failing to pay personal injury protection insurance claims within the time periods required by s. 627.736(4)(b).
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

DEFINITIONS In this policy, "you" and "your" refer to the "named insured" shown in the Declarations and the Spouse if a resident of the same household. "We," "us" and "our" refer to the Company providing this insurance. In addition, certain words and phrases are defined as follows: 3. "Insured" means you and residents of your household who are: a. Your relatives; or b. Other persons under the age of 21 and in the care of any person named above. Under Section II, "insured" also means: c. With respect to animals or watercraft to which this policy applies, any person or organization legally responsible for these animals or watercraft which are owned by you or any person included in 3.a. or 3.b. above. A person or organization using or having custody of these animals or watercraft in the course of any "business" or without consent of the owner is not an "insured"; d. With respect to any vehicle to which this policy applies: (1) Persons while engaged in your employ or that of any person included in 3.a. or 3.b. above; or (2) Other persons using the vehicle on an "insured location" with your consent. 4. "Insured location" means: a. The "residence premises"; b. The part of other premises, other structures and grounds used by you as a residence and: (1) Which is shown in the Declarations; or (2) Which is acquired by you during the policy period for your use as a residence; c. Any premises used by you in connection with a premises in 4.a. and 4.b. above; d. Any part of a premises: 1) Not owned by an "insured"; and (2) Where an "insured" is temporarily residing; e. Vacant land, other than farmland, owned by or rented to an "insured"; f. Land owned by or rented to an "insured" on which a one or two family dwelling is being built as a residence for an "insured"; g. Individual or family cemetery plots or burial vaults of an "insured"; or h. Any part of a premises occasionally rented to an "insured" for other than "business" use. 5. "Occurrence" means an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the Same general harmful conditions, which results, during the policy period, in: a. "Bodily injury"; or b. "Property damage." 6. "Property damage" means physical injury to, destruction of, or loss of use of tangible property. 8. "Residence premises" means: a. The one family dwelling, other structures, and grounds; or b. That part of any other building; where you reside and which is shown as the "residence premises" in the Declarations. "Residence premises" also means a two family dwelling where you reside in at least one of the Family units and which is shown as the "residence premises" in the Declarations. 10. “Hurricane loss” means any loss resulting from the peril of Windstorm caused by a hurricane during any period: a. Beginning when a hurricane watch or hurricane warning is issued for any portion of Florida by the National Hurricane Center of the National Weather Service; b. Remaining in effect for as long as hurricane conditions exist anywhere in the state of Florida; and c. Ending 72 hours after any hurricane watch or hurricane warning has been discontinued for all counties of the state of Florida by the National Hurricane Center of the National Weather Service. SECTION I – PROPERTY COVERAGES COVERAGE A– Dwelling We cover: 1. The dwelling on the "residence premises" used mainly as your private residence, including attached structures and attached wall-to-wall carpeting if damage to the dwelling is caused by a covered loss; and 2. Materials and supplies located on or next to the "residence premises" used to construct, alter or repair the dwelling or other structures on the "residence premises." This coverage does not apply to land, including land on which the dwelling is located. COVERAGE B – Other Structures We cover other structures on the “residence premises” set apart from the dwelling by clear space. This includes structures connected to the dwelling by only a fence, utility line, or similar connection. This coverage does not apply to land, including land on which the other structures are located. We do not cover other structures: 1. Used in whole or in part for “business”; or 2. Rented or held for rental to any person not a tenant of the dwelling, unless used solely as a Private garage. The limit of liability for this coverage will not be more than the limit shown on the Declarations page for Coverage B. Use of this coverage does not reduce the Coverage A limit of liability. COVERAGE C – Personal Property We cover personal property owned or used by an "insured" while it is anywhere in the world. At Your request, we will cover personal property owned by: 1. Others while the property is on the part of the "residence premises" occupied by an "insured"; 2. A guest or a "residence employee," while the property is in any residence occupied by an "insured." Our limit of liability for personal property usually located at an "insured's" residence, other than The "residence premises," is 10% of the limit of liability for Coverage C, or $1000, whichever is greater. Personal property in a newly acquired principal residence is not subject to this limitation for the 30 days from the time you begin to move the property there. ADDITIONAL COVERAGES 2. Reasonable Emergency Measures. a. We will pay up to the greater of $3,000 or 1% of your Coverage A limit of liability for the reasonable costs incurred by you for necessary measures taken solely to protect covered property from further damage, when the damage or loss is caused by a Peril Insured Against b. We will not pay more than the amount in a. above, unless we provide you with approval within 48 hours of your request to us to exceed the limit in a. above. In such circumstance, we will pay only up to the additional amount for the measures we authorize. c. If we fail to respond to you within 48 hours of your request to us and the damage or loss is caused by a Peril Insured Against, you may exceed the amount in a. above only up to the cost incurred by you for the reasonable emergency measures taken solely to protect the covered property from further damage. d. If however, your policy includes coverage for “hurricane loss” and a covered loss occurs during a hurricane that causes damage to your covered property, the amount we pay under this additional coverage will be the reasonable cost incurred by you for necessary measures taken solely to protect the property from further damage and is not limited to the amount in a. above. e. A reasonable measure under this Additional Coverage may include a permanent repair when necessary to protect the covered property from further damage or to prevent unwanted entry to the property. To the degree reasonably possible, the damaged property must be retained for our inspection, testing, and analysis. For purposes of this Additional Coverage, the cost of testing of air or property to confirm the absence, presence or level of fungi, mold, wet or dry rot, or bacteria is not considered a Reasonable Emergency Measure. This coverage does not relieve you of your duties, in case of a loss to covered property, as set forth in Section I – Condition 2.d. This coverage does not increase the limit of liability applying to the damaged covered property. SECTION I – PERILS INSURED AGAINST COVERAGE A – DWELLING and COVERAGE B – OTHER STRUCTURES We insure against risk of direct loss to property described in Coverages A and B only if that loss is a physical loss to property. SECTION I – CONDITIONS Loss Payment. We will adjust all losses with you. We will pay you unless some other person is named in the policy or is legally entitled to receive payment. Loss will be paid upon the earliest of the following: a. 20 days after we receive your written proof of loss and reach a written executed agreement of settlement with you according to the terms of the written agreement; or b. 60 days after we receive your written proof of loss and: (1) There is an entry of a final judgment or, in the case of an appeal from such judgment, within SFI FL HO3 03 20 Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc., with its permission. Page 20 of 31 60 days from and after the affirmance of the same by the appellate court; or (2) There is a written executed mediation settlement agreement with you according to the terms of the written mediation settlement; or c. Within 90 days after we receive written notice of an initial claim, “reopened claim” or “supplemental claim” from you, we will pay or deny such claim or a portion of the claim unless the failure to pay such claim or portion of claim is caused by factors beyond our control which reasonably prevent such payment.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

On January 14, 2023, the insured made a claim for benefits under the policy of property insurance issued by the insurer for the insured’s real property after it was damaged by a direct physical loss, more specifically Hurricane Nicole. Upon the insured’s notice, the insurer did not immediately investigate the loss in adjustment of the claim. Instead, its initial response was delayed and then painfully slow and unnecessarily deliberate. The investigation was punctuated with investigative requests both unnecessary and overly burdensome to the insured. On April 3, 2023, the carrier denied the claim for damages. Following said denial, litigation ensued. During the course of the litigation, on July 26, 2024 the carrier served a proposal for settlement. As part of the proposal for settlement, the carrier specifically notes they are contesting Plaintiff’s right to attorneys fees in the lawsuit. However, in the event the court disagreed with their motion to strike our fee entitlement, this offer is exclusive of fees. On August 26, 2024 counsel for Plaintiff advised carrier that Plaintiff was accepting the proposal for settlement, pending fees and costs. To date, despite it being more than 20 days of the date of acceptance, the carrier has failed to issue payment as per the terms of the Civil Remedy Notice, the policy and statute. More specifically, the policy states: Loss Payment. We will adjust all losses with you. We will pay you unless some other person is named in the policy or is legally entitled to receive payment. Loss will be paid upon the earliest of the following: a. 20 days after we receive your written proof of loss and reach a written executed agreement of settlement with you according to the terms of the written agreement; Further Florida Statute 627.4265 states: 627.4265 Payment of settlement.—In any case in which a person and an insurer have agreed in writing to the settlement of a claim, the insurer shall tender payment according to the terms of the agreement no later than 20 days after such settlement is reached. Based on the foregoing, payment should have been tendered within 20 days of Plaintiffs’ acceptance of the proposal for settlement. Instead, we are on day 29, and no payment has been tendered to date. In furtherance of the carrier's bad faith, as previously noted, the carrier is disputing the plaintiffs’ right to attorneys fee and has filed a motion striking said claim for fees. However, at the time of the issuance of the policy, Fla., Stat. §627.428(1)(2021), provided insureds with a statutory substantive right to a claim for attorneys fees in an action for breach of the policy and Plaintiff has made such claim in this action. See, Bionetics Corp., v. Kenniasty, 69 So. 3d 943, 948 (Fla. 2011)(... “statutory right to attorneys fees constitutes a substantive right.”). The Florida Supreme Court in State Farm Fire &Cas. Co., v. Palma, 629 So. 2d 830, 832 (Fla. 1993) held that the insured’s statutory right to attorneys fees are an implicit part of every insurance policy issued in Florida, declaring; “when insured sues to enforce policy because insurer has contested valid claim, relief sought is both policy proceeds and attorney fees” Palma, supra., and Synergy Contr Grp., Inc. v. Fednat Ins. Co., 332 So. 3d 62, 65 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) and Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Palmer, 297 So.2d 96 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). In a case on point, Water Damage Express LLC v. First Protective Insurance Company, 336 So. 3d 310 (Fla 4th DCA 2022), the court recognized that the attorneys fee statute in effect at the time an insurance contract is executed governs the substantive rights to attorneys fees. See also, Menendez v. Progressive Express Insurance Co., 35 So. 3d 873 (Fla. 2010), and Cole v. Universal Property & Cas. Ins. Co., 363 So. 3d 91089 (Fla 4th DCA 2023), (“... the right to attorney's fees ... is substantive and not able to be applied retroactively”). The Water Damage Express LLC decision held that a newly enacted statute affecting an insured’s assignee’s statutory rights to attorneys fees under Fla,. Stat., §627.428(1), cannot be applied retroactively. As such their refusal to acknowledge attorneys fees and costs further evidenced that carriers bad faith in the handling of this claim. It is believed that future bad faith discovery would reveal an extensive history of delay of claims similar to that of the insured and other insureds across the state of Florida, as this conduct may be a business practice of this Insurer. It is believed that future bad faith discovery may reveal an extensive history of denials (or underpayments) of claims similar to that of the insured and other insureds across the state of Florida, as this conduct may be a business practice of this Insurer. To cure the defects outlined in this civil remedy notice, the insurer must: 1. Immediately tender $ $33,500.00 payable to SHERLY YADIRA SOTO ORTIZ, LIONEL DELGADO OQUENDO, UNITED WHOLESALE MORTGAGE, RAINBOW RESTORATION OF WELLINGTON, AND DUBOFF LAW FIRM.) – said amount being exclusive of any claims for attorney’s fees and costs. 2. Tender an additional $15,000.00 to cure the bad faith. 3. Pay all statutory interest due on the foregoing amounts as provided by Fla. Stat. §627.70131(5)(a)
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
matthew.obrien@securityfirstflorida.com 11-12-2024 Via Electronic Filing: Florida Department of Financial Services Bureau of Consumer Assistance c/o: Civil Remedy Section Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0322 Via Email: KENNETH DUBOFF 680 NE 127TH ST NORTH MIAMI, FL 33161 STEPHANY@DUBOFFLAWFIRM.COM Re: CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE OF INSURER VIOLATION Filing No.: 784299 Insured: SHERLY YADIRA SOTO ORTIZ Insurer: Security First Insurance Company Claim No.: 244921 Policy No.: P000104046 Date of Loss: November 9, 2022 Dear Sir or Madam: This correspondence is in response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (hereinafter referred to as the “CRN”) was filed by KENNETH DUBOFF on behalf of his client, SHERLY YADIRA SOTO ORTIZ (hereinafter referred to as “Insured”). Please be advised that the undersigned represents the interests of Security First Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as “Security First”) with respect to the above-referenced matter. The Florida Department of Financial Services (hereinafter referred to as “Department”) assigned this CRN an acceptance date of September 24, 2024, and DFS File No.: 784299. This matter concerns a property damage claim made by the Insured pursuant to a homeowners’ insurance policy provided by Security First Policy No. P000104046 and assigned Claim No. 244921. As the basis for filing the CRN against Security First, SHERLY YADIRA SOTO ORTIZ asserts in the “Reasons for Notice” section violations such as Claim Denial, Claim Delay, Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer, Unfair Trade Practice along with the following statutory violations: 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i). Security First welcomes this opportunity to respond to the CRN and denies each allegation contained therein. The allegations made in the CRN are premature, as the insured has failed to perfect the claim for bad faith and the CRN does not meet the specificity requirement of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. This CRN does not sufficiently support the allegations stated above. As is standard procedure, upon the first notice of the claim, the subject property was dutifully inspected by an SFIC representative which was documented through photographs. I. Perfecting a Claim for Bad Faith SFIC specifically denies all allegations set forth in the Notice. SFIC contends that the Notice should be rejected and returned by the Department of Financial Services as it is premature. Pursuant to statute, there is no potential violation until a breach of contract is established. § 624.1551, Florida Statutes. Accordingly, any Notice filed prior to a finding that SFIC has breached the terms of the policy, is not ripe and is premature and thus fails to perfect SHERLY YADIRA SOTO ORTIZ rights to pursue civil remedies under Florida Statutes. II. Specificity Requirement The Insured’s CRN violates multiple requirements set forth in the Florida courts’ jurisprudence for Civil Remedy Notices. In addition, it fails to meet even the most basic requirements of the Statute. Pursuant to the terms of the statute, (3)(a) As a condition precedent to bringing an action under this section, the department and the authorized insurer must have been given 60 days’ written notice of the violations. Notice to the authorized insurer must be provided by the department to the e-mail address designated by the insurer under s. 624.422. (b) The notice shall be on a form provided by the department and shall state with specificity the following information, and such other information as the department may require (emphasis added): 1. The statutory provision, including the specific language of the statute, which the authorized insurer allegedly violated. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation. 3. The name of any individual involved in the violation. 4. Reference to specific policy language that is relevant to the violation, if any. If the person bringing the civil action is a third-party claimant, she or he shall not be required to reference the specific policy language if the authorized insurer has not provided a copy of the policy to the third-party claimant pursuant to written request. 5. A statement that the notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section. In interpreting this statute, courts have emphasized the importance of filing specific civil remedy notices. The civil remedy notice is “crucial to the procedural integrity of an action” under the Statute. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Clohessy, 32 F.Supp.2d 1328, 1333 (M.D. Fla. 1998). “It is, without a doubt, a condition that must be satisfied in order for one to perfect the right to sue under the statute.” Id. “In creating this statutory remedy for bad- faith actions, the Legislature provided this sixty-day window as a last opportunity for insurers to comply with their claim-handling obligations when a good-faith decision by the insurer would indicate that contractual benefits are owed.” Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 2000). Thus, the Notice cannot be “vague and ‘shotgun’ in nature,” rather than “the type of specific notice required by the statute that would allow [the insurer] an opportunity to cure.” Heritage Corp. of South Florida v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 580 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1299 (S.D. Fla. 2008). Because it is in derogation of the common law, Section 624.155(1)(b), Florida Statutes must be strictly construed. Talat, 753 So. 2d at 1283 (citing Baxter v. Royal Indem. Co., 285 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). To perfect the right to sue under the statute, the insured must specifically notify the insured of any and all alleged violations claimed. Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 952 F.Supp. 773, 776 (M.D. Fla. 1996) (“Talat I”) See Fox v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., No. 8:16-CV-3254-T-23MAP, 2017 WL 1541294, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2017) (sufficiency means specificity). In Junior Julien v. United Property and Casualty Insurance Company, 311 So.3d 875, 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021), the Honorable Court stated: The Middle District of Florida was confronted with a civil remedy notice that was similarly broad in scope and concluded that listing nearly all policy provisions on the notice did not satisfy the statute. Fox v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., No. 8:16-CV-3254-T-23MAP, 2017 WL 1541294, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2017). The court explained that “[i]f the statute contained no specificity requirement, [then] the [insureds’] casual ‘reference’ to the entire insurance policy undoubtedly would suffice.” Id. But, the court continued, “the Legislature included ‘specific’ or a variant not once but twice in the statute.” Id. As a result, the insureds’ listing of whole sections of the insurance policy “appear[ed] to lack specificity.” Id. In Valenti, the District Court for the Middle District of Florida considered the practical consequences of an insured’s non-specific civil remedy notice. Valenti v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America, 2006 WL 1627276 (M.D. Fla. 2006). The plaintiff’s civil remedy notice included allegations that the defendant conducted an inadequate investigation. The plaintiff, however, failed to identify with the requisite specificity the defendant’s actions that were inadequate. The Middle District held that the plaintiff’s civil remedy notice was insufficient, and stated the following: [T]he civil remedy notice must be specific enough to provide insurers notice of the wrongdoing so the insurer can cure the same within sixty days. … Plaintiffs’ counsel, during the hearing in this matter, argued a civil remedy notice that states “you denied my claim” should be sufficient to place the insurer on notice of what was needed to be cured. Plaintiffs’ counsel further argued that it was up to the insurer, as the insurance expert, to decipher what actions needed to be cured. This argument, in this Court's estimation, is illogical and is counter to the purpose of the civil remedy notice. If a simple “you denied my claim” was sufficient to put insurers on notice, the sixty-day cure period would be little more than a guessing game with the insurer attempting to correctly guess what errors the insured claimed it made in the claims handling process, or risk defending a bad faith action. This surely is not what the legislature had in mind when it created the civil remedy notice. Accordingly, this Court finds that Plaintiffs allegation that Defendant failed to conduct an adequate investigation is insufficient to provide Defendant an opportunity to cure. Id. at *2. The guidance for an insured could not be more clear. “The purpose of the civil remedy notice is to give the insurer one last chance to settle a claim with its insured and avoid unnecessary bad faith litigation.” Lane v. Westfield Insurance Co., 862 So. 2d 774, 779 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Its purpose is not “to give the insured a right of action to proceed against the insurer even after the insured’s claim has been paid or resolved.” Id. Ultimately, conclusory allegations without facts fail to perfect a statutory bad faith claim. Merely alleging the bare minimum allegations is insufficient pursuant to Florida courts’ interpretations of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. For example, the instant Civil Remedy Notice alleges seven statutory provisions as the basis for alleged violations. Included within those allegations is “626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i) Failing to pay personal injury protection insurance claims within the time periods required by s. 627.736(4)(b).” The policy provided by Security First does not include coverage for Personal Injury Protection, or other automotive coverage. The instant Civil Remedy Notice alleges that Security First conducted an investigation which was unnecessary and overly burdensome investigation requests. No facts are asserted as to why the investigation that Security First conducted was burdensome. Security first assigned both a field adjuster and roofer to inspect the property. The insured failed to meet their duty under the policy when they failed to coordinate an inspection of the property with the Field Adjuster, despite repeated attempts. Inspection of the roof by the Roofer revealed no storm created damage. A coverage determination was made denying coverage. The insured filed suit. As part of the proceedings of the lawsuit, Security First filed a Proposal for Settlement. Upon acceptance, and after receiving proposed check payee information, including mortgage carrier and third-party roofer, Security First timely ordered the check. Unknown, unforeseen, and unintended by Security First the indemnity check invertedly were sent to wrong location. Upon discovery that the check had been sent to the wrong location, Security First immediately requested the check be reissued. Upon receipt, the reissued check was sent to the office for Plaintiff’s counsel. USPS certified mail tracking indicates that the correspondence with included check was delivered. III. Conclusion At all times, Security First has acted in good faith in its handling of the claim and it has acted fairly, honestly, and with due regard for the Insured’s interest and in determining obligations to Insured. Specifically, Security First has complied with its obligations under the applicable Florida Statutes and the applicable Security First Insurance policy. Security First specifically denies any claim for bad faith and argues that the insured’s claim for bad faith is premature. Security First continues to reserve all its rights under the policy, at law and in equity. Regardless, Insured’s conclusory allegations fail to place Security First on notice of any purported violations. Furthermore, the Civil Remedy Notice fails to identify how to cure the allegations set forth. The allegations are without basis. It is clear Security First properly handled and adequately investigated the claim. We hope that this response has answered any concerns regarding this matter. If the Department has any question concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, _______________________ Matthew D. O’Brien, Esq. Attorney II - Security First Insurance Company Florida Bar - 0107377 Direct Office Line: (386) 202 - 1068 Office Hours: M-F 8:00 AM –5:00 PM To reach our Customer Helpline, please call: (877) 333-9992. Representatives are available Monday through Friday 8:00 AM – 7:00 PM and Saturday 8:30 AM – 4:30 PM.
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