Civil Remedy Filing

Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations

Filing Number: 799390

Filing Accepted: 1/6/2025

Print Filing

Complainant

Last/Business Name *

THOMPSON

First Name

MICHAEL

Street Address *

4428 ASHLAND ROAD

City, State Zip *

PANAMA CITY, FL 32405

Email Address *

PCJAZZ@GMAIL.COM

Complainant Type: *

Insured

Last/Business Name*		THOMPSON		First Name		MICHAEL
Policy # *		9975014821		Claim #*		01000012789

Attorney

Attorney is Applicable

Last Name*	COSTA First Name * LORI Initial
Street Address*		220 ALHAMBRA CIRCLE
City, State Zip*		CORAL GABLES , FLORIDA 33134
Email Address *		LCOSTA@MORGANLAWGROUP.NET

Violation

Insurer Type *		Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer

Insurer Name
Insurer Name*		FIRST PROTECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY
Insurer Name*
Street Address*
City, State Zip*		,
NAIC Company Code 10897

Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* BRIAN CHOJNOWSKI, JOHN DOWNING, NICK MOSER, ANY OTHER ADJUSTERS HANDLING CLAIM
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty

Reason for Notice *

	Claim Delay
	Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
	Unfair Trade Practice
	Other : Failure to comply with Appraisal Award

* 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)(b)		Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue.
	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.

Section I-Conditions 3. Loss Settlement: (4) we will settle the loss as noted in 3.a. of this provision. If 3.a is not applicable, we will settle the loss as follows: (a) We will initially pay the actual cash value of the building damage, minus any applicable deductible. (b) We will then pay the necessary amount actually spent to repair or replace the damage building as work is performed and expenses are incurred.

* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

1. The Thompsons filed their Complaint on April 4, 2023. They allege that due to First Protective’s Breach of Contract they are owed $17,384.93 in recoverable depreciation, $75,957.09 in matching costs and $192,474.00 in Ordinance and Law requirements to bring the subject windows up to code. 2. The subject policy’s applicable provision for the subject lawsuit is as follows: Section I-Conditions 3. Loss Settlement: (4) we will settle the loss as noted in 3.a. of this provision. If 3.a is not applicable, we will settle the loss as follows: (a) We will initially pay the actual cash value of the building damage, minus any applicable deductible. (b) We will then pay the necessary amount actually spent to repair or replace the damage building as work is performed and expenses are incurred. (Emphasis added). 3. Both the Thompsons and First Protective agreed that the home was damaged as a result of the subject hurricane; however, the parties disagreed on the price and scope of the damages. The parties entered into appraisal since they could not agree on the amount of the damages. The umpire Theodore Taylor, entered an award of: Coverage RCV Amount Of Loss ACV Amount Of Loss Coverage A - Dwelling: $366,267.27 $348,882.84 Coverage B - Other Structures: $17,293.90 $14,699.82 Coverage C - Personal Property: $0.00 $0.00 Coverage D - Loss of Use: As incurred, subject to policy provisions FS 626.9744 - "Matching": $75,957.09 $0.00 Mold: As incurred, subject to policy provisions Ordinance & Law: As incurred, subject to policy provisions Total Award Amount: $459,518.26 $363,582.66 Additionally, along with the Appraisal Award Form, Mr. Taylor completed a detailed line by line estimate indicating what the depreciation was, if any, for each specific item. 4. On October 25, 2022, the insured sent First Protective Insurance Company an invoice indicating repairs to the music room had been completed. The total cost of the repairs was $2,140. First Protective breached the contract when it failed to pay the depreciation amount, despite First Protective’s Desk Adjuster, Nick Moser, admitting $62.62 was owed in recoverable depreciation. (Violation of 624.155(1)(b)(1) 626.9541(1)(i)(2); 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b). 5. On December 7, 2022, First Protective sent correspondence to the Thompsons stating they needed the following before any replacement cash value will be released: Certificate of Completion, Paid in Full Invoice and Photographs of completed work. Said requirements, were in contradiction to the plain language of the policy which stated that replacement cash value would be released as work is performed and expenses are incurred. (Violation of 624.155(1)(b)(1); 626.9541(1)(i)(2); 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b); 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h)). 6. The Thompsons were forced to file suit due to First Protective’s breach and anticipatory breach of contract. 7. A certificate of completion dated June 19, 2024, indicating all work was done on the home. A copy of the certificate of completion was provided to First Protective. 8. As a result of the subject hurricane, the Thompsons had to replace windows in their home. The cost included the amount to bring the windows up to code. The total amount of the windows was $192,474. The umpire award allowed for the cost of the windows “as incurred, subject to the policy provisions.” Invoices regarding the total amount spent on the windows was provided via email to First Protective’s, Brian Chojnowski, on approximately October 14, 2024. Additionally, the window invoice was also provided between December 9, 2024, and December 18, 2024. First Protective has not paid the costs for law and ordinance as provided for in the appraisal award. 9. The Thompsons were also awarded matching costs in the amount of $75,957.09. To date, First Protective has not paid the matching costs as provided for in the appraisal award. 10. The Thompsons are owed $17,384.93, in recoverable Depreciation. To date, First Protective has not paid the recoverable depreciation provided for in the appraisal award. 11. Rather than pay any money owed to the Thompsons, First Protective filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Said Motion argued in part that no ACV amounts were due until ALL of the repairs were completed and paid for. First Protective argued that the Thompsons were not due to be compensated for any RCV on a line by line basis. The Thompsons responded to the Summary Judgment and argued in part that First Protective was not required to have a Certificate of Completion since the plain reading of the policy indicates that money would be paid out as the insured incurred costs. The Court denied First Protective’s Motion for Summary Judgment on December 3, 2024, because the plain meaning of the policy requires the First Protective to pay the RCV as costs are incurred. Thus, the RCV is to be paid on a line by line basis. 12. Despite the Court ruling RCV was due on a line by line basis, First Protective has still not paid any RCV as of the date of the filing of this CRN. 13. The total amount due and owing is $285,826.02, excluding attorney fees and costs.

Comments

User Id		Date Added		Comment
bchojnowski@penningtonlaw.com		03-06-2025		March 6, 2025 VIA EMAIL AND ELECTRONIC FILING THROUGH WWW.FLDFS.COM – CIVIL REMEDY SYSTEM Lori Costa 2020 Alhambra Circle Coral Gables, Florida 33134 lcosta@morganlawgroup.net Civil Remedy Notice Response DFS File No.: 799385 and 799390 Insureds: Tonya Thompson and Michael Thompson Complainants: Tonya Thompson and Michael Thompson Claim Number: 01000012789 Policy Number: 9975014821 Date CRN filed: 1/6/2025 Dear Counsel: Undersigned counsel and Pennington, P.A. represent FIRST PROTECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a FRONTLINE INSURANCE (“FRONTLINE”) with regard to the above-referenced claim. This shall serve as FRONTLINE’s response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (“CRN”), separately filed by or on behalf of Complainants TONYA THOMPSON and MICHAEL THOMPSON (“Complainants”). A combined response is being filed as the two civil remedy notices (Filing # 799385 and 799390) contain identical allegations. THE CRNS CONTAIN MISLEADING ALLEGATIONS The CRNs claim that Complainants filed their Complaint on April 4, 2023 and alleged they were due $192,474.00 in ordinance and law benefits. Complainants did not allege in their Complaint that they are entitled to ordinance and law benefits and filed a Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation on February 17, 2023 for damages only totaling $93,342.00, which is the combined total of recoverable depreciation and matching costs awarded in appraisal. Further, Complainants answered interrogatories under oath stating that no costs related to ordinance or law were due and owed to them as of April 4, 2023. Complainants did not timely and properly provide notice to FRONTLINE of a supplemental claim for ordinance and law benefits. Complainants misleadingly claim in their CRNs that they have made a claim for ordinance and law benefits all along, despite having previously stating under oath that no such claim had been incurred as of April 4, 2023. Complainants have never formally pled nor filed a notice of intent to initiate litigation for a claim related to ordinance and law benefits. Rather, Complainants have repeatedly attempted to retroactively claim that they have been seeking ordinance and law benefits all along, despite stating, under oath, that no such benefits were due or owed as of the filing of their lawsuit. As Complainants have never complied with their duties after loss with regard to making a claim for ordinance and law benefits, any suit they attempt to bring regarding such claim is in violation of the Suit Against Us provisions of the subject insurance policy. Complainants also falsely claim that FRONTLINE’s desk adjuster, Nick Moser, “admitt[ed] $62.62 [sic] was owed in recoverable depreciation.” This allegation is entirely unsupported by the facts and is directly contradicted by sworn testimony. Complainants base this allegation on an email that Nick Moser sent on November 18, 2022 that stated, “RD that would be released if all invoices received $63.62.” Complainants have repeatedly and in a lack of good faith attempted to twist this statement into an admission by FRONTLINE that $63.62 in recoverable depreciation was due despite no evidence supporting such an interpretation. Nick Moser was also deposed by Complainants’ counsel in the underlying litigation, during which he testified “that the only recoverable depreciation that I could calculate at the time was approximately $63.62. But we could not release that until we had her entire scope of work completed and all incurred cost.” [T. 15:21-25]. Mr. Moser also explicitly testified that $63.62 In recoverable depreciation was not owed: Q: Okay. So, she was due $63.62 at that time? A: No, sir. Not in my belief. [T. 16:25-17:2]. These misleading and false allegations evince a lack of good faith on the part of Complainants and their counsel in violation of their duties under § 624.155(5)(b)(1), Fla. Stat. No reasonable interpretation of this duty would support presenting allegations of fact that are directly rebutted by evidence and sworn testimony as grounds for demanding cure of alleged statutory violations. Just as misrepresenting facts is a statutory violation by an insurer under § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), Complainants must be held to the same expectation for the civil remedy notice procedure to have any meaning. SPECIFIC STATUTORY ALLEGATIONS FRONTLINE hereby responds to the allegations of statutory violations as follows: 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. This allegation does not fit with the overall facts of the case. This claim was submitted to appraisal, the appraisal panel entered an award, and that award included recoverable depreciation and matching costs. Both the insurance policy and Florida law are unequivocal that recoverable depreciation and matching costs must be incurred before they are paid. The amount of the claim was already liquidated by the appraisal panel. This was not a “settlement” issue as Complainants demanded payment of $63.62 which they were not yet due, then prematurely filed suit. By Complainants’ own admission, they only submitted proof of repairs to the music room totaling $2,140.00—an amount that only exceeded the actual cash value amount of the appraisal award for that specific room by $63.62. FRONTLINE maintains that recoverable depreciation was not owed for this de minimis amount as Complainants had not submitted proof that their repairs had exceeded the actual cash value amount of the appraisal award. No provision of Florida law nor the policy of insurance require partial payment of a claim for recoverable depreciation when repairs are not complete and no documentation has been submitted that the actual cash value of the claim as a whole has been paid. Complainants then filed suit over this minimal dispute seeking to enforce the policy and require FRONTLINE to pay damages that were not incurred until after they filed the lawsuit. Complainants seek to accelerate their damages under multiple coverages (recoverable depreciation, matching, and ordinance and law) by arguing that they are not required to comply with the terms and conditions of the policy as they allege FRONTLINE breached the policy first. Yet Complainants simultaneously seek to enforce the policy against FRONTLINE despite having failed to meet their own obligations to make their claims. Complainants have repeatedly accused FRONTLINE of “anticipatory breach” for requesting documentation regarding completion of repairs. FRONTLINE was well within its rights under the policy of insurance to request documentation it needed to adjust the claim. Complainants had no right to refuse to comply with their duties after loss, then file suit against FRONTLINE. Even assuming, arguendo, that FRONTLINE’s request for documentation amounted to an anticipatory breach, there is no logical reading of Florida law that permits an acceleration of damages that had not yet been incurred nor that pertained to other coverages. This is particularly true where Complainants are seeking remedy by way of enforcement of the contract, not rescission. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Amat, 198 So. 3d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). Complainants cannot have it both ways—they cannot repudiate their duties under the contract while 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)(b): Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. As noted in the previous section, these allegations are based on a demonstrably false account of the facts, i.e., Complainants’ allegation that Nick Moser “admit[ed] $62.62 [sic] was owed in recoverable depreciation.” As demonstrated above, Mr. Moser’s email and sworn testimony refute this mischaracterization of the facts by Complainants. There is no actual evidence of a misrepresentation of facts or policy provisions. Complainants also allege that FRONTLINE’s request for documentation regarding completion and cost of repairs constituted a misrepresentation of the policy terms. Throughout the underlying litigation, Complainants have repeatedly ignored the policy language that states FRONTLINE will “pay the necessary amount actually spent to repair or replace the damaged building as work is performed and expenses are incurred.” (emphasis added). FRONTLINE’s request for documentation, including paid in full invoices, is entirely consistent with documentation needed to determine the “amount actually spent.” Complainants have repeatedly attempted to twist these requests into something more sinister than they are, again exhibiting a lack of good faith on the part of Complainants and their representatives. Complainants also present no facts that support the second element of the alleged material misrepresentation statutory violation, that the alleged misrepresentation was made “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.” The only facts Complainants present are that FRONTLINE asked for information and documentation they felt they were not obligated to provide. Nothing in FRONTLINE’s numerous communications to Complainants indicated that FRONTLINE intended to refuse payment or attempting to get them to settle for a lesser amount. To the contrary, FRONTLINE was asking for documentation to support release of the funds awarded in appraisal. Nothing in these facts demonstrates an intent to effectuate a settlement on terms disadvantageous to Complainants. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h): Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary. Complainants’ CRNs contain no application of the facts to this supposed statutory violation. To the contrary, Complainants’ CRNs show that Complainants clearly understood why FRONTLINE was requesting information and documentation from them, as they state in their CRNs, “First Protective sent correspondence to the Thompsons stating they needed the following before any replacement cash value will be released: Certificate of Completion, Paid in Full Invoice and Photographs of completed work.” These requests were clearly stated in multiple letters to Complainants, including the following in a letter dated September 15, 2022: We also want to bring to your attention that we have paid the actual cash value of your insured loss per the loss settlement portion of your policy. There is up to $93,341.52 in Recoverable Depreciation that may still be claimed for Coverage A and matching items only as Coverage B has reached policy limits. In order to release any portion of this, we require you to provide: • Certificate of Completion o This is a document that is to be written on your contractor/repair person’s letterhead which states that the work listed on Frontline Estimate has been completed. • Paid in Full Invoice o Paid in full invoice which shows the exact cost that you incurred (paid) for the work that was done in the certificate of completion (see above). • Photographs of the completed work Complainants and their counsel know well that FRONTLINE requested documentation from them after payment of the appraisal award no fewer than eight times in writing and via telephone to show the amount actually spent on repairs. Clearly, the issue is not that Complainants did not understand what was being requested from them or the reason FRONTLINE requested such documentation. The issue is that Complainants felt they were entitled to release of the entirety of the recoverable depreciation award despite only performing a small portion of the repairs (for which they exceeded the actual cash value of the appraisal award for those line items by $63.62), and that they believed did not have to comply with FRONTLINE’s request for documentation. No violation of this statutory provision was committed by FRONTLINE and inclusion of such allegation only further suggests a lack of good faith on the part of Complainants and their representatives. COMPLAINANTS AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES HAVE CONTINUALLY VIOLATED THEIR DUTY TO ACT IN GOOD FAITH The sole basis for Complainants’ lawsuit and, ultimately, their CRNs, has been characterized as a disagreement over $63.62. In actuality, Complainants demanded release of the entire recoverable depreciation and matching awards from the appraisal process before providing any documentation of the amount they incurred for repairs. This necessitated multiple communications to Complainants from FRONTLINE explaining what documentation was needed for release of recoverable depreciation and matching costs. Complainants did not provide any documentation regarding the amount they actually incurred for repairs until they sent copies of checks and invoices for repairs to a single room (the music room) until they sent such documents concurrently with their Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation (“NOI”) on February 17, 2023. However, Complainants’ NOI did not simply demand payment of $63.62 but rather it demanded accelerated payment of the entirety of the recoverable depreciation and matching costs awards ($93,342.00) in addition to $8,500.00 in attorneys fees and $500.00 in costs. Complainants then prematurely filed suit before the statutory time period for FRONTLINE to investigate their supplemental claim for payment of recoverable depreciation had run. Notably, ordinance and law is not addressed anywhere in the NOI. This is a clear violation of Complainants’ duty to act in good faith. Complainants have taken the position that they were owed $63.62 yet demanded nothing short of the full amount of recoverable depreciation and matching costs in order to resolve their claim before suit was filed and without having provided any information supporting payment of any greater amount. It demonstrates that Complainants and their representatives were motivated only by pushing this matter into litigation over a de minimis amount of money to then try to claim payment of unproven benefits and to rack up attorneys’ fees. Had Complainants truly been acting in good faith, they would have filed a NOI that reflected the true amount they now claim was at issue—$63.62. Complainants’ efforts to include ordinance and law damages and demand for such payment is further evidence of a lack of good faith by Complainants and their representatives. Complainants also never made a claim for ordinance and law benefits until making reference to such a claim in a memorandum of law filed in the underlying lawsuit on August 8, 2024—more than a year after suit was filed. In that memorandum, Complainants alleged they were seeking $115,028.91. That number has continued to increase and now totals $192,474.00. Complainants have shown a lack of good faith in making such a claim without following proper notice requirements, by not submitting documentation supporting this amount, and by claiming ordinance and law benefits for repairs beyond the scope of the appraisal award. Such lack of good faith invalidates Complainants’ CRNs and renders them unenforceable. COMPLAINANTS’ CIVIL REMEDY NOTICES IMPROPERLY ATTEMPT TO MAKE DEFENSE COUNSEL A WITNESS AND CREATE CONFLICT BETWEEN COUNSEL AND HIS CLIENT Complainants’ CRNs list trial counsel for FRONTLINE, Brian Chojnowski, as a person with knowledge of the facts giving rise to the alleged violations. By naming trial counsel, Complainants’ representatives are improperly attempting to make FRONTINE’s counsel a witness and to generate a conflict for counsel where no such conflict exists. Further, inclusion of counsel as a person with knowledge is a bare attempt to put counsel’s mental impressions and attorney-client privileged communications at issue in both the underlying litigation and the bad faith litigation. Such abuse of the CRN process is improper and any CRN attempting such gamesmanship should be invalidated. COMPLAINANTS’ CIVIL REMEDY NOTICES ARE PREMATURE Complainants state in their CRNs that the underlying trial court has ruled that FRONTLINE was obligated to pay recoverable depreciation on a line-by-line basis and that, by failing to do so following such ruling, FRONTLINE has committed bad faith. However, Complainants have not obtained a summary judgment or a judgment entitling them to such an amount. Litigation is ongoing in the underlying litigation and no judgment has been entered. FRONTLINE also disputes the factual and legal basis for such an argument. COMPLAINANTS’ CURE DEMANDS ARE IMPROPER Both CRNs state “the total amount due and owing is $285,826.02, excluding attorney fees and costs.” It is unclear whether the cure demand is payment of this amount nor the amount being claimed for attorneys’ fees and costs. FRONTLINE cannot give any consideration to a cure demand that is missing elements. Otherwise, FRONTLINE is being expected to blindly commit to cure conditions that are unknown. In addition, failing to state the amount of fees and costs being demanded bars FRONTLINE from evaluating whether such fees and costs are related to the litigation of the underlying breach of contract action or the bad faith action. Attorneys fees and costs related to the bad faith action are not owed and inclusion of such fees and costs in a cure demand is improper. The Florida Supreme Court, in adopting the ruling of United States Magistrate Judge James G. Glazebrook, stated in Talat: The Court rejects as unsupported Talat's contention that the insurer must not only pay the claim within the sixty-day window, but must also pay all compensatory damages that flow from any delay in settling the claim. Section 624.155 does not impose on an insurer the obligation to pay whatever the insured demands. The sixty-day window is designed to be a cure period that will encourage payment of the underlying claim, and avoid unnecessary bad faith litigation. Surely an insurer need not immediately pay 100% of the damages claimed to flow from bad faith conduct in order to avoid the chance that the insured will succeed on a bad faith cause of action. If the insurer may avoid a bad faith action only by paying in advance every penny of the damages that it faces if it loses at trial, the insurer would have no reason to pay. Furthermore, few insureds would restrict their demands to compensatory damages. There is no reason why insureds would not demand also the advance payment of punitive damages and attorney's fees. Section 624.155(2)(d) would have no effect or purpose under such an interpretation. The law does not support such an expansive and illogical reading of Fla. Stat. Ann. § 624.155(2)(d). 753 So. 2d at 1282 quoting Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Life & Cas., 952 F. Supp. 773, 774 (M.D. Fla. 1996) (emphasis added). By requiring payment of bad faith attorneys’ fees at the civil remedy notice stage, Complainants are prematurely requiring payment of “every penny of the damages that it faces if it loses at trial[.]” This further demonstrates a lack of good faith on the part of Complainants by making unreasonable demands of FRONTLINE to resolve the alleged statutory violations. CONCLUSION AND RESERVATION OF RIGHTS FRONTLINE respectfully and categorically denies without limitation all of Complainants’ allegations within the CRNs, including but not limited to the alleged violations of the cited provisions of Florida law. FRONTLINE further denies any and all stated, implied, and/or unspecified allegations, including but not limited to denying any and all allegations of alleged improper claim handling, inadequate investigation, improper delay or denial, failing to adequately and promptly communicate, failing to provide reasonable explanations, failing to affirm or deny coverage, making misrepresentations, general business practices, unfair or deceptive trade practices, and/or unsatisfactory settlement offers or practices, and the like, whether or not specifically alleged by Complainants’ CRNs. FRONTLINE has not violated any applicable provision of Florida law in the handling of this claim. Accordingly, FRONTLINE objects to and denies the allegations of the CRNs. The objections and denials herein are not necessarily exhaustive and this response shall not prevent FRONTLINE from asserting any other appropriate objections, denials, and/or defenses related to this claim and/or CRNs. Moreover, due to the objections and defects discussed herein, the Department should strike and/or reject the CRNs as invalid. As a final matter, it should be emphasized that any policy issued by FRONTLINE is governed by the policy’s terms, conditions, and exclusions together with any endorsements. This response does not waive any such provisions of the policy. Furthermore, any action taken by or on behalf of FRONTLINE, any related insurance company, or its authorized representative(s), whether in the past or future, to investigate the alleged loss, to adjust any claim or request for payment, or in any way related to or arising out of the subject claim or loss, shall not waive any of the terms, conditions, or any other provisions of the policy. Sincerely, /s/ Brian E. Chojnowski Brian E. Chojnowski PENNINGTON, P.A. Copy furnished to: Florida Department of Financial Services First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Insurance

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