Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     792841
Filing Accepted:  11/18/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
DAVENPORT   First Name   MARC & CYNTHIA
Street Address * 10391 GYPSY AVE
City, State Zip * WEEKI WACHEE, FL 34613
Email Address * WITHHELD
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   DAVENPORT   First Name   MARC & CYNTHIA
Policy # * P004226391 Claim #* 245054
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* MULLINAX First Name * MATTHEW Initial
Street Address* 908 W HORATIO ST
City, State Zip* TAMPA , FL 33606
Email Address * MATT@MAKRISMULLINAX.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):* UNKNOWN
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Non-renewal
Other : Violation of Fla. Stat. 627.4133
* 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.
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.
* 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 INSURING AGREEMENT: “AGREEMENT. IN RELIANCE ON THE INFORMATION YOU HAVE GIVEN US, WE AGREE TO PROVIDE THE INSURANCE COVERAGES INDICATED IN THE POLICY DECLARATIONS. IN RETURN, YOU MUST PAY THE PREMIUM WHEN DUE AND COMPLY WITH THE POLICY TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND INFORM US WITHIN 60 DAYS OF ANY CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP, TITLE, USE OR OCCUPANCY OF THE DESCRIBED LOCATION.” THE NON-RENEWAL PROVISION OF THE POLICY LOCATED IN THE CONDITIONS SECTION OF THE POLICY.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

A PRIOR CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE WAS FILED RELATED TO THIS CLAIM ON APRIL 18, 2024 AND ASSIGNED FILING NUMBER 754185. THIS NOTICE IS FILED FOR SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ISSUES, AND DOES NOT REALLEGE OR REOPEN THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE NOTICE NUMBERED 754185. THIS NOTICE IS BASED ON THE IMPROPER NON-RENEWAL OF THE POLICY BY SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY (“SFIC”). SFIC AGREED TO INSURE THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10391 GYPSY AVE, WEEKI WACHEE, FLORIDA 34613 (“INSURED PROPERTY”) IN FAVOR OF THE INSUREDS MARC DAVENPORT AND CYNTHIA DAVENPORT. THE POLICY OF INSURANCE BEGAN ON JULY 5, 2022. ON OR ABOUT SEPTEMBER 28, 2022, THE INSURED PROPERTY SUFFERED DAMAGE. THE INSUREDS REPORTED THE DAMAGE TO SFIC AND SUBMITTED A CLAIM, WHICH SFIC ASSIGNED CLAIM NUMBER 245054. SFIC DETERMINED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS DAMAGED BY HURRICANE IAN, AND THAT THE DAMAGE WAS COVERED BY THE POLICY OF INSURANCE. SFIC DETERMINED THE COST TO REPAIR FELL BELOW THE POLICY’S APPLICABLE DEDUCTIBLE. THIS WAS COMMUNICATED BY LETTER FROM SFIC TO THE INSURED ON FEBRUARY 9, 2023. THE INSUREDS DISPUTED THE CLAIM DETERMINATION AND RETAINED A PUBLIC ADJUSTER ON FEBRUARY 17, 2023. THE PUBLIC ADJUSTER NOTIFIED SFIC OF ITS RETENTION AND THE DISPUTE AS TO THE CLAIM ASSESSMENT FOR SCOPE AND PRICING OF THE DAMAGE. IN RETALIATION, AND WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE THAT THE INSUREDS WERE OPENLY DISPUTING THE CLAIM DECISION, ON MARCH 1, 2023 SFIC ISSUED A NOTICE OF NON-RENEWAL FOR THE INSURANCE POLICY. SFIC DID THIS WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE THAT THE COVERED DAMAGE HAD NOT BEEN FULLY REPAIRED. THE NOTICE OF NON-RENEWAL WAS NOT SIGNED BY ANYONE AT SFIC SO IT IS UNKNOWN WHO AT SFIC HAS KNOWLEDGE FOR THE DECISION TO NON-RENEW. IN MARCH 2023, THE PUBLIC ADJUSTER SUBMITTED A DETAILED ESTIMATE OUTLINING THE DISAGREEMENT. ON APRIL 11, 2023, A NOTICE OF INTENT TO LITGATE WAS SUBMITTED. THE NON-RENEWAL BECAME EFFECTIVE JULY 5, 2023, AND ON THAT DATE SFIC REFUSED TO CONTINUE INSURING THE PROPERTY. AT THAT TIME, SFIC WAS FULLY AWARE THAT THE INSUREDS ACTIVELY DISPUTED THE CLAIM ADJUSTMENT AND SCOPE AND PRICING BY SFIC, AND SFIC WAS FULLY AWARE THAT THE COVERED DAMAGE HAD NOT BEEN FULLY REPAIRED DUE TO THE ONGOING DISPUTE. BY NON-RENEWING THE POLICY AND REFUSING TO CONTINUE INSURING THE PROPERTY, SFIC VIOLATED FLORIDA STATUTE 627.4133 AND THE POLICY OF INSURANCE PROVISIONS RELATED TO “INSURING AGREEMENT” AND “NON-RENEWAL.” FLORIDA STATUTE 627.4133 IS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE IN ITS ENTIRETY, BUT SUBSECTION (2)(E) READS AS FOLLOWS: ******** 627.4133 NOTICE OF CANCELLATION, NONRENEWAL, OR RENEWAL PREMIUM.— (2) WITH RESPECT TO ANY PERSONAL LINES OR COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY INSURANCE POLICY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY HOMEOWNER, MOBILE HOME OWNER, FARMOWNER, CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, CONDOMINIUM UNIT OWNER, APARTMENT BUILDING, OR OTHER POLICY COVERING A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE OR ITS CONTENTS: (E)1. AN AUTHORIZED INSURER MAY NOT CANCEL OR NONRENEW A PERSONAL RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY INSURANCE POLICY COVERING A DWELLING OR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THIS STATE: A. FOR A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS AFTER THE DWELLING OR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY HAS BEEN REPAIRED, IF SUCH PROPERTY HAS BEEN DAMAGED AS A RESULT OF A HURRICANE OR WIND LOSS THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY PURSUANT TO S. 252.36 AND THE FILING OF AN ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE REGULATION. B. UNTIL THE EARLIER OF WHEN THE DWELLING OR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY HAS BEEN REPAIRED OR 1 YEAR AFTER THE INSURER ISSUES THE FINAL CLAIM PAYMENT, IF SUCH PROPERTY WAS DAMAGED BY ANY COVERED PERIL AND SUB-SUBPARAGRAPH A. DOES NOT APPLY. 2. HOWEVER, AN INSURER OR AGENT MAY CANCEL OR NONRENEW SUCH A POLICY PRIOR TO THE REPAIR OF THE DWELLING OR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY: A. UPON 10 DAYS’ NOTICE FOR NONPAYMENT OF PREMIUM; OR B. UPON 45 DAYS’ NOTICE: (I) FOR A MATERIAL MISSTATEMENT OR FRAUD RELATED TO THE CLAIM; (II) IF THE INSURER DETERMINES THAT THE INSURED HAS UNREASONABLY CAUSED A DELAY IN THE REPAIR OF THE DWELLING; OR (III) IF THE INSURER HAS PAID POLICY LIMITS. 3. IF THE INSURER ELECTS TO NONRENEW A POLICY COVERING A PROPERTY THAT HAS BEEN DAMAGED, THE INSURER SHALL PROVIDE AT LEAST 90 DAYS’ NOTICE TO THE INSURED THAT THE INSURER INTENDS TO NONRENEW THE POLICY 90 DAYS AFTER THE DWELLING OR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY HAS BEEN REPAIRED. NOTHING IN THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL PREVENT THE INSURER FROM CANCELING OR NONRENEWING THE POLICY 90 DAYS AFTER THE REPAIRS ARE COMPLETE FOR THE SAME REASONS THE INSURER WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE CANCELED OR NONRENEWED THE POLICY BUT FOR THE LIMITATIONS OF SUBPARAGRAPH 1. THE FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMISSION MAY ADOPT RULES, AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE REGULATION MAY ISSUE ORDERS, NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THIS PARAGRAPH. 4. THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL ALSO APPLY TO PERSONAL RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL POLICIES COVERING PROPERTY THAT WAS DAMAGED AS THE RESULT OF HURRICANE IAN OR HURRICANE NICOLE. 5. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS PARAGRAPH: A. A STRUCTURE IS DEEMED TO BE REPAIRED WHEN SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETED AND RESTORED TO THE EXTENT THAT IT IS INSURABLE BY ANOTHER AUTHORIZED INSURER WRITING POLICIES IN THIS STATE. B. THE TERM “INSURER” MEANS AN AUTHORIZED INSURER. ******** UPON INFORMATION AND BELIEF, SFIC PERFORMS THE SUBJECT ACTIONS AS A BUSINESS PRACTICE, INCLUDING NON-RENEWING POLICIES OF INSURANCE IN RESPONSE TO CLAIMS SUBMITTED BY ITS INSUREDS AND WHILE THE CLAIMS REMAIN IN DISPUTE AND/OR WITH DAMAGE THAT HAS NOT BEEN FULLY REPAIRED. UPON INFORMATION AND BELIEF, THIS IS DONE TO CREATE THE FINANCIAL HARDSHIP OF NOT HAVING INSURANCE OR HAVING TO INCUR LENDER PLACED INSURANCE AT A HIGHER PREMIUM DUE TO THE INABILITY TO OBTAIN INSURANCE ELSEWHERE WITH A PENDING CLAIM AND DAMAGE, SO THAT THE INSURED WILL DROP THE DISPUTE WITH SFIC OR ACCEPT LESS THAN OWED FOR THE CLAIM IN ORDER TO CLOSE THE CLAIM AND GET INSURANCE ELSEWHERE. IN THE EVENT SFIC BELIEVES THIS CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE LACKS INFORMATION NECESSARY FOR SFIC TO CURE THE DEFECTS OUTLINED IN THIS NOTICE, OR THAT IT LACKS REQUIRED SPECIFICS IN ANY WAY, SFIC SHOULD CONTACT THE FILER OF THIS NOTICE DIRECTLY AND ALERT THEM TO THAT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, PRIOR TO ANY FORMAL RESPONSE. THIS NOTICE IS FILED AND GIVEN TO SFIC TO PERFECT THE RIGHT TO PURSUE THE CIVIL REMEDY THAT SECTION 624.155 AUTHORIZES. TO CURE THE DEFECTS OUTLINED IN THIS CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE, SFIC MUST: (1). REINSTATE THE POLICY OF INSURANCE FOR THE INSURED’S HOME AND BEGIN INSURING THE HOME AGAIN. A COPY OF THIS FORM SUBMITTED TO THE FDFS HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE FOLLOWING PARTIES PROVIDING THEM NOTICE OF THE FILING OF THE CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE: SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY CARE OF: MATTHEW D. O'BRIEN, ESQUIRE IN-HOUSE COUNSEL FOR SECURITY FIRST
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
matthew.obrien@securityfirstflorida.com 01-08-2025 January 8, 2025 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: Mathew Mullinax Esq. 908 W Horatio St., Suite 106 Tampa, Florida 33606 matt@makrismullinax.com Re: CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE OF INSURER VIOLATION Filing No.: 792841 Insured: MARC DAVENPORT & CYNTHIA DAVENPORT Insurer: Security First Insurance Company Claim No.: 245054 Policy No.: P004226391 Date of Loss: 9/28/2022 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 Mathew Mullinax, Esq., on behalf of his clients, Marc Davenport and Cynthia Davenport (hereinafter referred to as “Insureds”). 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 November 18, 2024, and DFS File No: 792841. This matter concerns a property damage claim made by the Insured pursuant to a homeowners’ insurance policy provided by Security First Policy No. P004226391 and assigned Claim No. 245054. Policy P004226391 relates to the insured property location of 10391 Gypsy Ave, Weeki Wachee, FL 34613-3503 (hereinafter referred to as “Insured Property”). As the basis for filing the CRN against Security First, Marc Davenport and Cynthia Davenport asserts in the “Reasons for Notice” section violation Non-renewal Other: Violation of Fla. Stat 627.4133, and the statutory provisions which the insurer allegedly violated 624.155(1)(b)(1), 626.9541(1)(i)(2), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) 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. Correspondence entitled Policy Renewal dated May 24, 2023 was sent to the insured Marc Davenport at the address of 10391 Gypsy Ave, Weeki Wachee, FL 34613-3503. In that correspondence, a renewal was offered for the Insured Property. Also on May 24, 2023, a second correspondence, entitled Invoice, was sent to the insured Marc Davenport at the address of 10391 Gypsy Ave, Weeki Wachee, FL 34613-3503. This Invoice correspondence advised that Mr. Davenport’s Lienholder had been billed and that Security First had provided payment information, which was included within the correspondence. The correspondence also advised if Mr. Davenport was aware the mortgage company would not be issuing a payment, to submit payment via several payment options. The payment amount was indicated, as was the due date of July 5, 2023. A correspondence entitled “Premium Notice” was sent to the insured Marc Davenport at the address of 10391 Gypsy Ave, Weeki Wachee, FL 34613-3503 on June 20, 2023. That correspondence advised that Security first had sent the renewal bill to the mortgage holder, and again advised if the mortgage company would not be issuing payment, to submit payment by the due date of July 5, 2023. Correspondence dated July 10, 2023, was sent to the insured Marc Davenport at the address of 10391 Gypsy Ave, Weeki Wachee, FL 34613-3503, entitled “Nonpayment Cancellation Notice.” The correspondence advised that insurance policy P004226391 for the Insured Property was set to cancel due to nonpayment of the premium. The correspondence requests payment by July 25, 2023, to avoid a lapse in coverage. Payment options were listed, as was the contact information for the Insureds’ agent. Finally, correspondence dated July 25, 2023 was sent to the insured Marc Davenport at the address of 10391 Gypsy Ave, Weeki Wachee, FL 34613-3503, entitled “Notice of Lapse.” The correspondence advised that the amount due to continue coverage was not received and that the renewal offer on policy P004226391 had expired. 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 Ethel Cooley 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, §624.155(3) (a) Fla. Stat. (2004) 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. 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, /s/ Matthew D. O'Brien Matthew D. O’Brien, Esq. Attorney II - Security First Insurance Company Florida Bar - 0107377 Security First Insurance Company 1001 Broadway Avenue Ormond Beach, Florida 32714 Matthew.obrien@securityfirstflorida.com Telephone Number:(386) 202 - 1068
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