Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     787578
Filing Accepted:  10/18/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
RAY   First Name   GLORY
Street Address * 4443 DE KALB AVENUE
City, State Zip * JACKSONVILLE, FL 32207
Email Address * RAY_CURTIS@ATT.NET
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   RAY   First Name   GLORY
Policy # * P000311542 Claim #* 255567
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* KRAPF First Name * GRANT Initial W.
Street Address* 2790 SUNSET POINT ROAD
City, State Zip* CLEARWATER , FLORIDA 33579
Email Address * ASSIST@KRAPFLEGAL.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):* DANIEL SANTOS, AND ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL FROM, OR AGENT OF, SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY, WHO WAS INVOLVED IN THE CLAIM.
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Unfair Trade Practice
Claim Denial
Claim Delay
Other : Misrepresenting the terms of the insurance policy
Other : Not treating the Insured with good faith claims conduct
Other : Looking for ways to deny full recovery to the Insured
Other : Looking for ways to delay full recovery to the Insured
Other : Failing to properly investigate the Insured’s loss
Other : Failing to provide the Insured with the full benefits awarded under the contract of insurance in a t
Other : Not training, supervising, or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made,
Other : Not adjusting claims and evaluating loss properly
Other : Shifting the burden of insuring the loss to the Insured
Other : Intentionally misstating the terms, conditions, and benefits of the insurance policy to the insured
Other : Failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims
* 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)(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.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

627.70131 (1)(a) - Upon an insurer's receiving a communication with respect to a claim, the insurer shall, within 7 calendar days, review and acknowledge receipt of such communication unless payment is made within that period of time or unless the failure to acknowledge is caused by factors beyond the control of the insurer. If the acknowledgment is not in writing, a notification indicating acknowledgment shall be made in the insurer's claim file and dated. A communication made to or by a representative of an insurer with respect to a claim shall constitute communication to or by the insurer. 627.444(2)(a) Notwithstanding any other law, an insurer shall provide to an insured within 15 calendar days after an individual or entity designated by the insurer receives the insured's written request, either: A loss run statement; 627.4137(1)(e) – Each insurer which does or may provide liability insurance coverage to pay all or a portion of any claim which might be made shall provide, within 30 days of the written request of the claimant, a statement, under oath, of a corporate officer or the insurer's claims manager or superintendent setting forth the following information with regard to each known policy of insurance, including excess or umbrella insurance: A copy of the policy. Reference to specific policy language: The violations alleged are statutorily based and do not rely on any specific policy language. “It is an accepted principle of law that when parties contract upon a matter which is the subject of statutory regulation, the parties are presumed to have entered into their agreement with reference to such statute, which becomes a part of the contract, unless the contract discloses a contrary intention.” Westside EKG Assocs. v. Found. Health, 932 So. 2d 214, 216 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), aff’d, 944 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 2006).
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Security First Insurance Company (the “Insurer”) has committed the following in handling the Insured’s claim: 1) failure to act in due diligence and good faith to resolve claims; 2) placing the financial interest of Insurer before that of the policyholder and the Insured; 3) looking for ways to deny benefit payments and otherwise “low ball” or “stone wall” claims; 4) not adjusting the claims promptly and fairly; 5) not attempting in good faith to settle claims; 6) conducting inadequate investigations; 7) failing to employ policies and procedures to conduct adequate investigations; 8) denying a claim which it knew or should have known the policy and Florida law provided coverage for; 9) shifting the burden of investigating the loss onto the Insured; 10) failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims; 11) failing to respond to or acknowledge correspondence within statutory time period; 12) failing to provide a loss run statement; and 13) misrepresenting the terms of the insurance policy. On or about June 9, 2024, while the subject policy was in full force and effect, the Insured’s suffered a loss caused by a water leak. The areas impacted include but are not limited to the master bathroom, master shower, bathroom closet, master bedroom, and laundry room. The Insured timely submitted a claim on June 10, 2024, to the Insurer for water damage and the ensuing damage therefrom. Thereafter, the Insurer assigned claim number 255567 to the loss and sent a field adjuster to inspect the property on June 12, 2024. Given the scope and nature of the damage, the Insured retained plumbing services for which they paid $256.43 out-of-pocket, as well as a public adjuster. After assessing the damage and the true scope of repairs, the public adjuster prepared an estimate identifying $40,537.23 in covered damage to the dwelling. The foregoing estimate, photographs, and a letter of representation from the public adjuster were sent to the Insurer who thereafter failed to timely respond to the Insured’s communications. Subsequently, in a coverage determination letter dated July 25, 2024, the Insurer notified the Insured that it was denying coverage for the loss. The Insurer misrepresented the loss and issued a wrongful denial. The Insurer based this denial on the rationale that the damage sustained was a result of “…chronic water damage...” as well as “…chronic exposure to elevated humidity resulting from an improperly installed exhaust fan.” Although the Insurer and Insured are in dispute about how the dwelling was damaged, the Insurer knows or should know that when independent perils converge and no single cause can be considered the sole or proximate cause, it is appropriate to apply the concurring cause doctrine. Sebo v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 208 So. 3d 694, 697 (Fla. 2016). The concurring cause doctrine states that coverage may exist where an insured risk constitutes a concurrent cause of the loss even when it is not the prime or efficient cause. Id. at 698. A covered peril that meets with an uncovered peril may still provide for coverage under a policy when the covered peril triggered the events that eventually led to the loss. Id. at 697. This coverage determination additionally failed to detail an accurate date of loss, to the detriment of the Insured. The Insured’s reported date of loss is June 9, 2024, which the Insurer has misrepresented as March 9, 2024. Initially, the Insurer knows or should know that a denial based on a disputed date of loss is improper when damage did in fact occur from a covered peril within the effective policy period. It is the Insured’s duty to report when damage results from a covered peril and that which occurs within the effective policy period. Correspondingly, the Insurer has an obligation to determine whether a covered peril caused the alleged damages within the policy period irrespective of a disputed date of loss. In other words, the Insured has a right to be compensated for the alleged damages and the Insurer has no right to wrongfully deny coverage. Despite the obvious damage occurring during the effective policy period, the Insurer wrongfully denied the Insured’s valid claim. The insurer moreover materially misrepresented the terms of the insurance policy. Insurer stated that the policy excluded "constant or repeated seepage or leakage of water.” The insurer has drafted and interpreted its policy in such a way as to appear to provide coverage to its policyholders for mold and mildew while providing itself a way to deny every claim reported to it. Pursuant to the policy of insurance issued by Insurer to Insured, Insurer appears to provide coverage for “fungi”, wet or dry rot, or bacteria in certain situations. However, the policy issued by Insurer also excludes coverage for any damage caused by “constant or repeated seepage or leakage of water or the presence or condensation of humidity, moisture or vapor, over a period of 14 or more days.” These terms under the policy are contradictory as the development of “wet or dry rot” cannot occur without the presence of moisture over a period of time. Insurer has intentionally misled its Insureds into believing that it provides coverage for “fungi”, wet or dry rot, or bacteria in certain situations when, in fact, Insurer has the ability to deny every claim for mold or fungi reported to it. Insurer has accepted premiums from its policyholders under the pretense that it provides coverage for the development of “wet or dry rot” when it has no intention of paying for any mold, rot, or fungi claim reported to it. Upon receiving notice of the loss, the Insurer had the duty to provide the full benefits under the policy. This includes providing the Insured with a proper investigation and the funds necessary to return the home to its pre-loss condition. There may be further wrongful conduct which has not been made known to the Insured at this moment. Certain conduct or actions may be discovered throughout discovery or cannot be verified without a review of the Insurer’s claim file and standards and procedures for the adjustment and investigation of claims. Furthermore, the Insurer and its agents failed to comply with Fla. Stat. § 627.444 by not providing the Insured and the Insured’s representatives with a loss run statement. On August 19, 2024, the Insured’s legal counsel provided the Insurer with a letter of representation. Within the letter, legal counsel requested a copy of a loss run statement. The Insurer and its agents have not acknowledged the request for a loss run statement nor has a loss run statement been provided. Upon an Insurer receiving a written request for a loss run statement, the Insurer is required, within fifteen (15) calendar days, to provide either a loss run statement or information on how to obtain a loss run statement at no charge through a consumer reporting agency. There has been no response within fifteen (15) calendar days of the Insured’s written request and the Insurer has not provided information on how to obtain a loss run statement at no charge through a consumer reporting agency. This Insurer has breached its duty to settle claims in good faith when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so. The Insurer and its agents have not acted fairly and honestly toward the Insured and the Insured’s representative and have moreover failed or refused to promptly acknowledge the Insured’s communications in an attempt to frustrate and delay the resolution of the Insured’s claim. In addition, on September 3, 2024, September 10, 2024, September 17, 2024, September 24, 2024, October 1, 2024, October 8, 2024, and October 16, 2024, the Insured, through legal counsel, asked for the Insurer to confirm receipt of the Letter of Representation that was sent on August 19, 2024. To date, the Insurer has not responded to any of these communication attempts. This shows that Insurer has failed to acknowledge the receipt of communications within seven (7) days in violation of Florida Statute 627.70131(1)(a). Upon an Insurer’s receiving a communication with respect to a claim, the Insurer shall, within seven (7) calendar days, review and acknowledge receipt of such communication unless payment is made within that period of time or unless the failure to acknowledge is caused by factors beyond the control of the Insurer which reasonably prevents such acknowledgement. Not surprisingly, the Insurer continued to delay and frustrate the Insured’s ability to have this claim adjusted promptly by failing to timely provide the Insured with the policy after it was requested. The Insured’s legal counsel requested the policy in its letter of representation and multiple times after that. The policy was not received within 30 days of the first written request. More concerning is that the policy has yet to be received. Each Insurer which does or may provide liability insurance coverage to pay all or a portion of any claim which might be made shall provide, within 30 days of the written request of the Insured, a statement, under oath, of a corporate officer or the insurer’s claims manager or superintendent, a copy of the policy. Fla. Stat. 627.4137(1)(e). Insurers have a duty to settle claims in good faith when, under all the circumstances, they could and should have done so, had they acted fairly and honestly toward its insureds and with due regard for their interests. This is to say, this Insurer has failed and/or refused to promptly acknowledge the Insured’s communication in an attempt to frustrate and delay the resolution of this claim. In short, the Insurer is not acting with due regard for the Insured’s interests or safety. In Florida the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. The Insurer has breached this trust and its duty to the Insured. The Insurer and its agents conducted cursory and inadequate investigations and wrongfully denied coverage for a loss that should have been covered under the subject policy. Moreover, the Insurer has engaged in bad faith practices designed to delay claims and prevent the Insured from recovering what is rightfully owed under the subject policy of insurance. The Insurer’s actions and inactions have continued to frustrate and delay the resolution of the Insured claim. The Insurer’s actions amount to but are not limited to the following: 1. Claim denial 2. Claim delay 3. Not treating the Insured with good faith claims conduct 4. Looking for way to reduce recovery to the Insured 5. Looking for ways to deny recovery to the Insured 6. Not adjusting claims and evaluating loss properly, promptly and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to the Insured 7. Not training, supervising or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made, but rather placing the company’s interests before the Insured's interests 8. Placing the financial interest of the Insurer over that of the health and safety of the Insured 9. Shifting the burden of investigating onto the Insured 10. Conducting inadequate investigations 11. Failing to provide a loss run statement 12. Making material misrepresentations Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this civil remedy notice, the Insurer must: (1). Admit full coverage for the Insured’s loss. (2). Tender full benefits owed to the Insured under the insurance contract. A copy of this form submitted to the FDFS has been sent via e-mail to the following parties providing them notice of the filing of the civil remedy notice. Please e-mail any response to this civil remedy notice to badfaith@krapflegal.com. Via E-mail: Security First Insurance Company P. O. Box 105649 Atlanta, GA 30348 claims@securityfirstflorida.com
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
dsantos@securityfirstflorida.com 12-17-2024 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: Krapf Legal 2790 Sunset Point Rd Clearwater, FL 33579 assist@krapflegal.com Re: CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE OF INSURER VIOLATION Filing No.: 787578 Insured: Curtis Ray Insurer: Security First Insurance Company Claim No.: 255567 Policy No.: P000311542 Date of Loss: March 9, 2024 Dear Sir or Madam: This correspondence is in response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (hereinafter referred to as the “CRN”) filed by Krapf Legal, on behalf of their client, Curtis Ray (hereinafter referred to as “Insured”). The Florida Department of Financial Services (hereinafter referred to as “Department”) assigned this CRN an acceptance date of October 18, 2024, and assigned DFS File No.: 787578. This matter concerns a property damage claim made by the Insured pursuant to a homeowners’ insurance policy provided by Security First Policy No. P000311542 and assigned Claim No. 255567. As the basis for filing the CRN against Security First, Insured asserts in the “Reasons for Notice” section violations such as claim delay, unsatisfactory settlement offer, along with the following statutory violations: 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(2), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d). 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. On June 10, 2024, a claim was reported for a loss that occurred on March 9, 2024. The following day, June 11, 2024, Sleuth Inc., our preferred vendor, inspected the insured property. During this inspection, they discovered a compromised cold-water supply line within the master bathroom wall, which was causing continuous dripping. They also noted that a previous leak in the same wall had been repaired before their inspection; this earlier leak was located near the top of the wall, towards the ceiling. On June 12, 2024, AirSpec, Inc., another preferred vendor, inspected the insured property. They confirmed that the mold growth was caused by multiple water supply line leaks, which had led to chronic water damage in the primary bathroom, shower, and closet. One of these leaks had already been repaired. Further analysis indicated that the mold growth on the ceiling and upper walls of the primary shower, as well as in the ceiling cavity of the primary bathroom, was primarily due to chronic exposure to elevated humidity levels caused by an improperly installed exhaust fan. On July 25, 2024, a denial letter was processed due to the constant or repeated seepage or leakage of water, and the claim was closed – declined. SFI is currently pending the attorney’s acceptance or counteroffer for settlement. As detailed herein, Security First continued to timely respond, investigate the claim, and explain the reasoning for its coverage decision. Thus, Security First acted well within industry standards. Furthermore, the allegations made in the CRN do not meet the specificity requirement of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. 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 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 rights to pursue civil remedies under Florida Statutes. Additionally, a notice of intent to initiate litigation was filed with the Department on the same day this CRN was filed. 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 email address designated by the insurer under s. 624.422. a. 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): b.(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 email address designated by the insurer under s. 624.422. i. The statutory provision, including the specific language of the statute, which the authorized insurer allegedly violated. ii. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation. iii. The name of any individual involved in the violation. iv. 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. v. 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. AetnaCas. & 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. UnumLife Ins. Co. of America, No. 8:04-cv-1615-T-30TGW, 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. The 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 Plaintiff's allegation that Defendant failed to conduct an adequate investigation is insufficient to provide Defendant an opportunity to cure. Id. at *2. The guidance for the insured could not be clearer. “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. A simple review of the facts of this claim reveals that there was not any delay in processing the claim. While the Insured may find unsatisfactory the decision, the facts of this claim reveal no unfair trade practices on the part of Security First. 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 the 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 of bad faith and argues that the insured’s claim of 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 was 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 the undersigned. Sincerely, Daniel Santos Security First Insurance License Number: D049321 (386) 868-1852 dsantos@securityfirstflorida.com
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