Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     789127
Filing Accepted:  10/29/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
BREWER   First Name   SUE ANNE
Street Address * 417 CR 532E
City, State Zip * BUSHNELL, FL 33513-34
Email Address * LINDAYA444@GMAIL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   BREWER   First Name   SUE ANNE
Policy # * PFL392661-04 Claim #* CFL24603302
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* LINE First Name * KACI Initial A
Street Address* 2431 LEE ROAD
City, State Zip* WINTER PARK , FL 32789
Email Address * KACI@TAGUSLAW.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   PEOPLE'S TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 13125
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* PATRICK HOBBS AND ALL ADJUSTERS, SUPERVISORS, MANAGEMENT, AND INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH OR RETAINED BY PEOPLE’S TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY INVOLVED IN THIS CLAIM.
Type of Insurance * Residential 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)(2) Making claims payments to insureds or beneficiaries not accompanied by a statement setting forth the coverage under which payments are being made.
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)(e) Failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and, as to partial coverage, the dollar amount or extent of coverage, or failing to provide a written statement that the claim is being investigated, upon the written request of the insured within 30 days after proof-of-loss statements have been completed.
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.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

The complainant will abbreviate the full policy language for purposes of brevity while clearly identifying the significant portions so the Respondent may identify the full language... THIS VIOLATION REFERENCES THE DEFINITIONS CONTAINED WITHIN THE POLICY AND ITS AMENDMENTS AND ENDORSEMENTS THAT PERTAIN TO COVERAGES FOR ROOF AND WATER DAMAGES (INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY) TO THE PROPERTY OF SUE ANNE BREWER. THIS VIOLATION ALSO REFERENCES COVERAGES - COVERAGE A - DWELLING AND ALL APPLICABLE PORTIONS OF THE POLICY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO AMENDMENTS AND ENDORSEMENTS. THIS VIOLATION ALSO REFERENCES THE COVERAGE B - OTHER STRUCTURES PORTION OF THE POLICY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO AMENDMENTS AND ENDORSEMENTS. THIS VIOLATION ALSO REFERENCES PERILS INSURED AGAINST COVERAGE A - DWELLING AND COVERAGE B OTHER STRUCTURES, ITS APPLICABLE PORTIONS OF THE POLICY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO AMENDMENTS AND ENDORSEMENTS. THIS VIOLATION ALSO REFERENCES THE ORDINANCE AND LAW PORTION OF THE POLICY THAT WAS PURCHASED WITH PREMIUM DOLLARS PAID TO PEOPLE’S TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY . THIS VIOLATION ALSO REFERENCES SECTION I - CONDITIONS - SUBSECTION 3 LOSS SETTLEMENT AND ITS APPLICABLE PORTIONS OF THE POLICY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO AMENDMENTS AND ENDORSEMENTS. THIS VIOLATION ALSO REFERENCES FUNGI, WET OR DRY ROT OR BACTERIAL COVERAGE ENDORSEMENT.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Section I Property Coverages provides coverage for the claim and there are no exclusions that apply. PEOPLE’S TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY has failed to issue payment pursuant to the Loss Settlement Provision. On out about, April 11, 2024, during the coverage period while the policy was in full force and effect, the subject property sustained a sudden and accidental covered loss as a result of a hail and windstorm causing extensive damage to the property. PEOPLE’S TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY (“PTI”) received timely notice of the claim and assigned claim number CFL24603302. PTI performed a cursory inspection of the property that failed to retain the experts necessary to identify the repairs necessary to restore the property to its pre-loss condition. PTI continued the intentional path of claim delay and underpayment by failing to implement policies and procedures for payment of clearly covered claims. PTI time and time again, relies upon “cookie-cutter” reports that less than ironically state the cause of the damage to be identical to those exclusions found inside of PTI’s policy of insurance. PTI continues to fail to promptly settle the claim when its obligation to settle has, under all the circumstances, become reasonably clear. There is no question the roof of the Insured’s home was stuck by hail and winds so severe that caused damage and requiring a full roof replacement, gutters, and extensive interior repairs. Despite this, PTI denied coverage for the clearly covered loss. PTI continues to rely upon more restrictive definitions of damage that is not contained within the policy and appears to only look for damage that would not be covered while intentionally not photographing or documenting the extensive covered damage. However, PTI continues to use more restrictive definitions of definitions of “hail” to deny a hail claim. Furthermore, PTI intentionally did not photograph multiple damaged area of the Insured’s property and did not use clearly damaged property areas while determining the covered loss. PTI relies upon the report and estimate of its adjuster which bears little to no relationship to the actual, visible damage to the roof and its necessary repair/replacement. It is clear that PTI has put its own interest over that of its insured and has made this case about protecting its bottom line as opposed to living up to the contract of insurance it was paid premium dollars for. The insurer’s conduct in this case occurs with such frequency as to constitute a general business practice. PTI knows it has failed to issue proper payment for the clearly covered loss to include damages and repairs covered by the policy and Florida law. Moreover, PTI has failed to comply with its loss settlement provision. Rather than issuing the proper payment or attempting to reach an agreement with its insured, PTI is delaying and denying the claim. Upon information and belief, PTI performs the subject actions as a business practice, including delaying and denying the claim and issuing "low ball" payments in an attempt to dissuade its insureds from pursuing the claim to the detriment of its insureds to increase financial profits. PEOPLE’S TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY can cure the violations contained herein by issuing a payment for all contractual damages owed, per estimates of $33,490.00 plus interest, costs, and attorney’s fees. This willful and wanton business practice in reckless disregard for the right of insurer’s insureds and is a violation of Florida Statute 624.155(1)(B)(1) which states it is an unfair claims settlement practice in “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 interest.” This willful and wanton business practice of insurer, in reckless disregard for the rights of its insureds, is in violation of Florida Statute 624.155(1)(B)(3), which defines unfair claims settlement practices to include “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.” This willful and wanton business practice of insurer, in reckless disregard for the rights of its insureds, is in violation of Florida Statute 626.9542(1)(I)(3)(a), which defines unfair claims settlement practices to include “failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.”
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
bfrankel@gmail.com 12-20-2024 RE: Complainant: Sue Anne Brewer Claim No: CFL24603302 Policy No: PFL392661-04 Date of Loss: 04/11/2024 Date Reported: 08/27/2024 DFS CRN: 789127 Filing Accepted: 10/29/2024 Dear Sir or Madam: This correspondence is in response to Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations #789127 (hereinafter referred to as the “CRN”) filed on behalf of Sue Anne Brewer (hereinafter “Claimant” or “Insured”). The Department of Financial Services assigned an accepted date of October 29, 2024, for the CRN. This matter concerns a claim for damage reportedly as a result of wind, pursuant to a homeowners insurance policy provided by People’s Trust Policy No.: PFL392661-04. People’s Trust Insurance Company (hereinafter “PTI”) welcomes this opportunity to respond to the CRN and denies each and every allegation contained therein, whether expressed and or implied. PTI does not consider there to have been any manner of violation and questions the validity of the CRN as it fails to meet the requirements set forth in Section 624.155, Florida Statutes and Florida law and thus fails to perfect the Claimant’s right to pursue civil remedies under Florida Statutes. Furthermore, the Notice does not accurately reflect the development of the claim as presented. The potential statutory violations and facts provided are nothing more than unsupported, baseless allegations. There are no facts or circumstances to support any kind of mishandling of this matter by PTI. As indicated below, the subject property was dutifully inspected, and the proper coverage determination was made for the claim based on the clear meaning of the subject policy. The Claimant’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. Accordingly, PTI respectfully requests the Department return the CRN and insist the Insured provide the specific facts required for civil remedy notices. These requirements arise from the following provisions of Section 624.155: (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 violation. If the department returns a notice for lack of specificity, the 60-day time period shall not begin until a proper notice is filed. (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, he 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 CRN 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 insurer 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”). 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. … Plaintiff’s 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. Plaintiff’s 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 an 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. There are at least eight requirements for a valid civil remedy notice. Pursuant to Section 624.155(3)(c)’s requirement that a civil remedy notice must set forth the “facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation,” a valid civil remedy notice must contain the following: 1. “explain how the [insurer] violated [the statutes],” Heritage Corp., 580 F.Supp. 2d at 1299; 2. “explain the amounts of damage at issue caused by the [insurer’s] alleged statutory violations,” rather than caused by the loss itself, Id.; 3. Provide the facts showing “knowledge and/or delay on the insurance company’s part,” 316, Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 625 F. Supp. 2d 1187, 1192 (N.D. Fla. 2008). 4. provide the facts supporting the specific contractual damages allegedly owed rather than merely the policy limits, Id. at 1193; 5. if an inadequate investigation is alleged, the civil remedy notice must be specific enough to allow the insurer to conduct an additional investigation, Nowak v. Lexington Ins. Co., 464 F.Supp.2d 1248, 1252 (S.D. Fla. 2006). Additionally, subsections (3)(a)1., 3. and 4. require: 6. “the statutory provision, including the specific language of the statute, which the authorized insurer allegedly violated;” 7. “the name of any individual involved in the violation;” and 8. “Reference to specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.” As noted, the first five requirements mandate the Claimant to provide specific facts and circumstances of the alleged violations. This would necessarily include specific facts regarding the method of the investigation; the reasons the investigation was improper or otherwise inadequate; the reasons why this alleged inadequacy is due to the failure to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims, and the facts supporting these conclusions. To allege an inadequate investigation, the Notice must include specific facts regarding the method, rather than merely the results. Valenti, 2006 WL 1627276, at *1. Florida law does not allow an Insured, without providing any facts, to allege that the insurer’s only option to avoid bad faith is paying whatever the Insured demands. 316, Inc., 625 F.Supp.2d at 1194. Requirements two and four regarding the alleged damage must also be specifically provided in the civil remedy notices. Importantly, the Talat court held that payment of undisputed damages within the cure period is sufficient to preclude a statutory bad faith action. In that circumstance, the insurer has “timely paid ‘the damages’ and has corrected ‘the circumstances giving rise to the violation’ within the meaning of [Section 624.155(2)(d), Florida Statutes].” Id. at 1281. The insurer is not required to pay any compensatory damages that flow from any alleged delay in settling the claim. Importantly, only the contractual benefits are owed during the 60-day cure period. To provide an insurer with the notice of the contractual and extra-contractual damages, Florida law clearly requires facts supporting the amount. Merely requesting payment within policy limits without any basis renders the civil remedy notice invalid. If the civil remedy notice does not satisfy each of the eight elements, it cannot be considered valid pursuant to the Florida case authority cited above. The Insured’s CRN is deficient for several reasons. The CRN fails to include necessary facts that provide context to their statutory allegations aside from broad accusations and conclusions without any factual support. The CRN fails to refer to specific policy language that is relevant to the alleged violations. The CRN impermissibly demands payment of claimed attorney’s fees and costs or makes other extracontractual demands as part of the proposed cure. The CRN deficiencies cause the CRN to fall woefully short of providing notice to PTI of any alleged wrongdoing, and these glaring deficiencies deny PTI the ability to cure the alleged wrongdoing within sixty (60) days. Notwithstanding, to comply with statutory obligations, PTI provides the follow summary of facts in support of its categorical denial of every alleged statutory violation raised in this CRN. In short, PTI implemented compliant standards for investigating claims, including performing reasonable investigations, accurately representing facts and policy provisions, acknowledging and promptly acting upon communications from and on behalf of its policyholders, promptly advising when additional information is needed and why, and setting forth in writing detailed policy grounds supporting its coverage decisions. PTI implemented those standards as a general practice and fully adhered to them while adjusting this Claim. The Insured reported the claim to PTI on August 27, 2024, as occurring on April 11, 2024. Subsequently, PTI assigned the claim to a licensed field adjuster. The field adjuster inspected the subject property on September 5, 2024. During the inspection, the field adjuster observed all the alleged damage associated with the loss. The field adjuster noted age-related wear and tear throughout the roof as well as prior repairs, however, the field adjuster did not observe any wind or storm-related damage to the roofing system. Additionally, the adjuster noted long-term water damage to the fascia and the soffit of the rear elevation. Lastly, the adjuster observed interior damage to the ceilings of the hallway, living room, dining room, master closet, garage, and patio, and the insured advised the adjuster that she previously had an A/C leak. While that only summarizes the observations and conclusions reached by the field adjuster, PTI relied on the entire inspection report, along with all other information and documentation gathered and provided to that point, when rendering the coverage decision. On September 18, 2024, PTI issued its written denial letter setting forth, in detail, the policy language and factual grounds upon which the decision was made. PTI denied the loss, in sum, because no windstorm or hail damage was observed to the roof or exterior of the property. The Policy covers interior water damage from rain only when a covered peril damages the building causing an opening in the roof or exterior through which that water entered. With the above-mentioned facts established, it is clear the alleged statutory violations are also unsupported. Without any supporting facts other than conclusory statements provided by the Claimant, PTI cannot adequately address the same. In our factual analysis provided in this response, we provided facts that implicitly address many of the allegations in the CRN. From those facts, it becomes clear that PTI is dealing with the claim pursuant to the professional standards of care. The CRN alleges the following statutory violations by PTI and, because of the bare nature of the allegations and facts provided, we address each as follows: • 624.155(1)(b)(1) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its Insured and with due regards for her or his interests – Claimant has not provided any facts to sustain such an allegation. This loss as at issue was denied under the terms, conditions, and exclusions of the subject policy and a detailed letter explaining PTI’s decision was provided to the Insured. This allegation is baseless. 624.155(1)(b)(2) Making claims payments to insureds or beneficiaries not accompanied by a statement setting forth the coverage under which payments are being made; – PTI denies this alleged statutory violation, and advises that Claimant has not provided any facts to sustain such an allegation. This loss as at issue was denied under the terms, conditions, and exclusions of the subject policy and a detailed letter explaining PTI’s decision was provided to the Insured. This allegation is baseless. • 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 – PTI denies this alleged statutory violation, and advises that Claimant has not provided any facts to sustain such an allegation. This loss as at issue was denied under the terms, conditions, and exclusions of the subject policy and a detailed letter explaining PTI’s decision was provided to the Insured. This allegation is baseless. • 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims – Claimant has not provided any facts to sustain such an allegation. The date of loss was April 11, 2024. The loss was reported on August 27, 2024. PTI promptly inspected the subject property and timely provided a coverage determination. This allegation is baseless. • 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. Claimant has not provided any facts to sustain such an allegation. • 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims – Claimant has not provided any facts to sustain such an allegation. • 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information; – Claimant has not provided any facts to sustain such an allegation. • 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e) Failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and, as to partial coverage, the dollar amount or extent of coverage, or failing to provide a written statement that the claim is being investigated, upon the written request of the insured within 30 days after proof-of-loss statements have been completed; Claimant has not provided any facts to sustain such an allegation. This loss as at issue was denied under the terms, conditions, and exclusions of the subject policy and a detailed letter explaining PTI’s decision was provided to the Insured. This allegation is baseless. • 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. – Claimant has not provided any facts to sustain such an allegation. This loss as at issue was denied under the terms, conditions, and exclusions of the subject policy and a detailed letter explaining PTI’s decision was provided to the Insured. This allegation is baseless. • 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g) Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim. – Claimant has not provided any facts to sustain such an allegation. • 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h) Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary – Claimant has not provided any facts to sustain such an allegation. As shown, PTI has not acted in bad faith but has observed the terms and conditions of the Policy and Florida law, and has not engaged in any claim delay, claim denial, or unfair trade practice that the CRN alleges. PTI further maintains that its practices and/or guidelines for response to claims are adequate to provide for the proper investigation and resolution of all claims. PTI specifically denies any and all allegations contained within the CRN including, but not limited to, those allegations contained within “Reason for Notice” including any claim for bad faith. PTI made its coverage determination after a thorough investigation of the loss. There are no additional benefits due or owing at this time. The facts referenced in the CRN are inaccurate, incomplete and premature. Simply because the Claimant disagrees with PTI does not mean that PTI acted in bad faith. The Claimant has not produced any evidence to substantiate the allegations. Furthermore, the bare nature of the CRN does not allow for a more specific response to the alleged violations. PTI will provide a further response and consider the same when any additional information is provided relative to any alleged violation. PTI continues to reserve all its rights. We trust this fully and adequately responds to any inquiry regarding the instant claim. If you have any questions or require further clarification about the above, please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, /S/ Andres Zornosa Andres Zornosa, Esq. People’s Trust Insurance Company
kaci@taguslaw.com 10-30-2024 Please Amend the property address to: 6448 CR 601B, Bushnell, FL 33513
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