Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     801232
Filing Accepted:  1/15/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
OSTEEN   First Name   JOHN
Street Address * 312 GLENRIDGE ROAD
City, State Zip * PERRY, FL 32348
Email Address * JMANTEN@HSTALAW.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   OSTEEN   First Name   JOHN
Policy # * 80BUN5309 Claim #* 5974P768S
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* MANTEN First Name * JASON Initial
Street Address* 312 GLENRUDFE ROAD
City, State Zip* PERRY , FL 32348
Email Address * JMANTEN@HSTALAW.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10739
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* N/A
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
Claim Delay
Unfair Trade Practice
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
* Statutory provision(s) which the insurer allegedly violated.
 
624.155(1)(b)(1) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests.
624.155(1)(b)(3) Except as to liability coverages, failing to promptly settle claims, when the obligation to settle a claim has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(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.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

VARIOUS LANGUAGE THROUGHOUT THE POLICY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO PROVISIONS GOVERNING COVERAGE FOR ROOF DAMAGE, WATER DAMAGE, MOLD, HAIL DAMAGE, AND/OR WINDSTORM DAMAGE, THE LOSS PAYMENT PROVISION(S), THE PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE INSURER; AND COVERAGE A – DWELLING; COVERAGE B – OTHER STRUCTURES; COVERAGE D – ADDITIONAL LIVING EXPENSES. KIN’S HURRICANE DEDUCTIBLE ENDORESEMENT DEFINING “HURRICANE LOSSES,” AND “WINDSTORM.”
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

IN FLORIDA, THE WORK OF ADJUSTING INSURANCE CLAIMS ENGAGES THE PUBLIC TRUST. STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY HAS BREACHED THIS DUTY THROUGH ITS HANDLING OF THE CLAIM. THE INSURER HAS FAILED TO EVALUATE CLAIMS HANDLING AND TRAINING AND SUPERVISION OF ITS EMPLOYEES AND REPRESENTATIVES RESULTING IN STATUTORY VIOLATIONS AS SET FORTH WITHIN THIS CRN: 1) FAILURE TO PAY CLAIM IN FULL; 2) FAILURE TO PROMPTLY INVESTIGATE CLAIM; 3) FAILURE TO PROPERLY INVESTIGATE CLAIM; 4) FAILURE TO ADJUST LOSS; 5) FAILURE TO ACT IN DUE DILIGENCE AND GOOD FAITH TO RESOLVE CLAIM; 6) PLACING FINANCIAL INTEREST OF INSURER BEFORE THAT OF POLICY HOLDERS AND CLAIMANTS; 7) FAILURE TO PROPERLY TRAIN, EVALUATE AND MANAGE ADJUSTERS; 8) LOOKING FOR WAYS TO DENY COVERAGE, PAY LESS, DELAY PAYMENT AND OTHERWISE “LOW BALL” OR “STONE WALL” CLAIM; 9) THE REASONS FOR THIS MAY BE ATTRIBUTED TO IMPROPER TRAINING, SUPERVISION, AND/OR MOTIVATION OF ADJUSTERS AND CLAIMS SUPERVISORS. THE INSURER APPEARS TO HAVE FAILED TO ADOPT PROPER STANDARDS OF INVESTIGATION AND ADJUSTMENT OF LOSSES, OR IS OTHERWISE NOT IMPLEMENTING THOSE STANDARDS BECAUSE FULL PAYMENT AND PROMPT PAYMENT FOR THE LOSS IS NOT OCCURRING. THIS COMPLAINT IS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE NAMED INSUREDS, JOHN OSTEEN. IN CONSIDERATION OF THE PREMIUM PAID TO THE INSURANCE COMPANY, STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, A POLICY OF INSURANCE TO JOHN OSTEEN WHICH PROVIDED COVERAGE FOR CERTAIN LOSSES ASSOCIATED WITH HURRICANE IAN. DURING THE POLICY PERIOD, HURRICANE IAN CAUSED CONSIDERABLE DAMAGE TO THE INSUREDS RESIDENCE PREMISES AND OTHER STRUCTURES. THE INSUREDS PROPERTY SUFFERED DAMAGE WHICH WAS AND IS COVERED BY THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE INSURANCE POLICY. THE LOSS WAS SUDDEN AND ACCIDENTAL, AND THEREFORE A COVERED PERIL UNDER THE POLICY. JOHN OSTEEN PROMPTLY REPORTED THE LOSS TO THE INSURANCE COMPANY AND HAS COMPLIED WITH ALL CONDITIONS OF THE POLICY. AFTER AN INSUFFICIENT INVESTIGATION AND THE PREPARATION OF A LACK LUSTER ESTIMATE, THE INSURANCE COMPANY UNDERVALUED AND UNDERPAID THE DAMAGES TO THE INSURED PROPERTY BY DETERMINING THAT THE DAMAGES RELATING TO THE CLAIM CONTAINED ITEMS UNRELATED TO HURRICANE IAN DAMAGE, AND THAT THE CONNERS’ ROOF HAD UNREPAIRED DAMAGE. DUE TO CONCERNS WITH THE DELAY IN THE INVESTIGATION AND THE INSURANCE COMPANY’S UNDERVALUE AND UNDERPAYMENT OF THE CLAIM, THE INSURED RETAINED AN EXPERIENCED AND HIGHLY QUALIFIED PUBLIC ADJUSTER, CORBITT PUBLIC ADJUSTING, LLC TO PREPARE AN ESTIMATE OF DAMAGE. THE ESTIMATED COST OF REPAIRS TO THE INSUREDS PROPERTY CURRENTLY STANDS AT APPROXIMATELY $257,562.88. THE INSUREDS HAS PROVIDED THE INSURER WITH DOCUMENTATION SUPPORTING THE REPAIRS OF THEIR DAMAGES ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR CLAIM FROM CORBITT PUBLIC ADJUSTING, LLC, LLC. THE INSURED HAS MADE AN APPLICATION FOR INSURANCE BENEFITS UNDER THE POLICY BUT THE INSURANCE COMPANY HAS FAILED AND/OR REFUSED TO PAY THE FULL BENEFITS TO WHICH THE INSURED IS ENTITLED FOR THE LOSS. THE INSURANCE COMPANY HAS BREACHED THE POLICY OF INSURANCE BY FAILING TO PAY ALL OF THE BENEFITS DUE UNDER THE POLICY. THE INSURANCE COMPANY HAS FAILED TO SATISFACTORILY SETTLE THIS CLAIM AND HAS DEPRIVED THE INSURED OF A PROPER RESOLUTION OF THIS CLAIM. THE INSURANCE COMPANY HAS FAILED AND/OR REFUSED TO PROPERLY INVESTIGATE THE LOSS AND HAS FAILED AND/OR REFUSED TO TENDER THE PROPER AMOUNT OF INSURANCE BENEFITS DUE AND OWING TO THE INSURED. IN ORDER TO CURE THE CONDUCT GIVING RISE TO THE VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED HEREIN, THE INSURANCE COMPANY MUST COMPLETE A PROPER EVALUATION OF THE DAMAGES VIA QUALIFIED PROFESSIONALS AND IMMEDIATELY ISSUE PAYMENT FOR ALL THE COVERED DAMAGES PRESENTED BY THE INSURED AND CORBITT PUBLIC ADJUSTING, LLC. IN ADDITION, THE INSURANCE COMPANY MUST ISSUE PAYMENT TO THE INSURED FOR REASONABLE FEES, COSTS, AND PRE-JUDGMENT INTEREST IF REQUIRED BY THE APPLICABLE FLORIDA STATUTES. AS
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
jmanten@hstalaw.com 05-20-2026 The parties hereby withdraw this CRN at this time. The parties have amicably resolved this matter and no further action is needed
jnovaes@butler.legal 03-14-2025 Re: Complainant: John Osteen Claim Number: 59-74P7-68S Policy Number: 80-BU-N530-9 DFS Filing Number: 801232 Dear Sir/Madam: This letter responds on behalf of State Farm Florida Insurance Company (“State Farm”) to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation filed by attorney Jason Manten on behalf of John Osteen. State Farm welcomes the opportunity to respond to this Notice and specifically denies each and every allegation contained in the Notice. That said, State Farm believes the Notice fails to comply with the specific notice and information requirements as set forth in the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation document provisions, Florida Statute § 624.155, and Florida case law. State Farm has acted fairly and with due diligence throughout the handling of the insured’s claim. To the extent this reply does not fully address and respond to the allegations set forth by the Notice, such deficiency is the direct result of the lack of specificity and the overall vague nature of the allegations contained therein. First, Florida Statute § 624.155(3)(b) requires that the Notice be on a form provided by the department. The form requires that the Complainant list an email address. Here, the Notice fails to list an Email Address for the Complainant. Instead, the email address provided for the Complainant is the same as the Email Address listed for Mr. Manten’s law firm. Second, § 624.155(3)(b)(3) requires: (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: … 3. The name of any individual involved in the violation. In the space provided on the form, the Notice names no one. Instead, it says “N/A.” To be valid, it must “state with specificity. . . [t]he name of any individual involved in the violation.” Therefore, the Notice fails to comply with §624.155(3)(b)(3). Third, § 624.155(3)(b)(4) requires: (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: … 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. The insured is not a third-party claimant. And, State Farm previously provided a copy of the policy to Mr. Osteen. Hence, to be valid, the Notice must “[r]eference [the] specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.” It does not. Thus, it fails to comply with § 624.155(3)(b)(4). Fourth, §624.155(3)(b)(2), Florida Statutes, requires: (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: … 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation. The Notice fails to supply the facts and circumstances giving rise to the alleged violations. It does not explain how the scant, supposed “facts,” and, scant, supposed “circumstances,” correspond to the alleged statutory violations. To be valid, the Notice must “state with specificity . . . [t]he facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.” Thus, it fails to comply with §624.155(3)(b)(2), Florida Statutes. See also, Talat Enter., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1283 (Fla. 2000); Julien v. United Prop. and Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). The deficiencies in the Notice deprive State Farm of a legitimate opportunity to “cure” the purported violations. Fifth, the Notice is invalid because it makes improper demands to cure, which is at odds with the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling in Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1283 (Fla. 2000). For the aforementioned reasons, State Farm believes the Notice does not comply with § 624.155, Florida Statutes. State Farm hereby asserts all, and does not waive any, defects in the Notice by filing this response. Despite that the notice is invalid, State Farm denies the allegations in the civil remedy notice and denies that it has done anything improper. State Farm has, at all times, acted in good faith toward Mr. Osteen. State Farm denies that is violated §§ 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), or 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f). State Farm hereby denies each and every allegation contained in the notice, either explicitly or implicitly, and State Farm denies any wrongdoing in the handling of the subject claim. This matter arises out of a claim for loss and alleged damage that occurred at the insured property on September 26, 2024. The claim was reported to State Farm on September 30, 2024. Following the notice of loss, State Farm performed an investigation into the alleged damage purportedly caused by the loss. State Farm inspected the property on October 21, 2024. Thereafter, State Farm timely issued a coverage determination letter to Mr. Osteen based on the results of State Farm’s investigation of the claim. Unfortunately, the estimate of the covered damages claimed by Mr. Osteen in this claim are less than the insurance policy’s deductible. Therefore, there is no amount owed under the terms of the subject insurance policy. Florida Statute § 624.155(1)(b)(1) State Farm denies any violation of § 624.155(1)(b)(1), which provides: 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 towards its insured and with due regard for her or his interests. State Farm acted fairly and honestly toward Mr. Osteen at all times. At no time has State Farm acted dishonestly or unfairly toward Mr. Osteen. All of State Farm’s actions have been performed in good faith and for the purpose of moving Mr. Osteen’s claim toward a just and proper determination of coverage under the subject insurance policy. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation have been provided by Mr. Osteen in the Notice. To the contrary, as outlined above, State Farm promptly initiated an investigation into the damages allegedly caused by the loss and advised Mr. Osteen of State Farm’s coverage determination. As a result, there is no evidence that State Farm violated § 624.155(1)(b)(1) that it did not act in good faith to settle Mr. Osteen’s claim or that it did not act fairly and honestly towards the Complainant with due regard for Mr. Osteen’s interests. Florida Statute § 624.155(1)(b)(3) State Farm denies any violation of Fla. Stat. §624.155(1)(b)(3), which provides: 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. State Farm conducted a thorough investigation of Mr. Osteen’s claim and promptly made a claim determination. As a result, State Farm has properly adjusted Mr. Osteen’s claim. However, State Farm continues to remain open to consideration of any records, documents, or information to be submitted on behalf of Mr. Osteen contrary to State Farm’s claim determination. To date, Mr. Osteen or his representatives have not submitted any records, documents, or information for State Farm’s consideration, which would affect State Farm’s determination of coverages for this claim. As a result, there is no evidence to substantiate Mr. Osteen’s claim that State Farm has failed to promptly settle his claim, 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. Florida Statute § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) State Farm denies any violation of § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), which provides: Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. This allegation is without basis, and the Notice again fails to allege any facts or circumstances whatsoever that would provide any support for this allegation. State Farm has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of insurance claims and has complied with the same at all times during the investigation of Mr. Osteen’s claim. The standards and methods utilized by State Farm in examining its claims have met and exceeded its obligations and industry standards. State Farm has conducted the handling of this claim according to such standards and Mr. Osteen has failed to allege any factual support or evidence to substantiate his allegation that State Farm has failed to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of insurance claims. Florida Statute § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) State Farm denies any violation of § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), which provides: Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. This allegation is without basis, and the Notice again fails to allege any facts or circumstances whatsoever that would provide any support for this allegation. State Farm has at no time acted in violation of the above-referenced statute. Further, there are absolutely no facts or evidence contained in the Notice to substantiate Mr. Osteen’s allegation that State Farm acted in violation of this section. Rather, the narrative of the Civil Remedy Notice contains no explanation, much less any specific allegation that State Farm misrepresented any pertinent fact or policy provision at issue. Florida Statute § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) State Farm denies any violation of § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), which provides: Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. State Farm has at no time acted in violation of the above-referenced statute. Further, there are absolutely no facts or evidence contained in the Notice to substantiate Mr. Osteen’s allegation that State Farm has acted in violation of this section. To the contrary, State Farm has acknowledged and acted promptly upon all communications. There is no evidence to substantiate Mr. Osteen’s claim that State Farm has failed to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. To the extent the civil remedy notice alleges that State Farm did not respond to certain communications, please allow this letter to respond to any communications Mr. Osteen believes were not adequately responded to by State Farm. Florida Statute § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) State Farm denies any violation of § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), which provides: Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information. State Farm has not acted in violation of the above-referenced statute at any time. Further, there are absolutely no facts or evidence contained in the Notice to substantiate Mr. Osteen’s allegation that State Farm has acted in violation of this section. Notably, at no point prior to the filing of the Civil Remedy Notice had State Farm denied Mr. Osteen’s claim. To the contrary, the standards and methods utilized by State Farm in investigating the claims of its policyholders have met and exceeded the requirements of all applicable Florida laws. State Farm has conducted a reasonable investigation of Mr. Osteen’s claim for loss and damages. In this regard, State Farm has properly investigated Mr. Osteen’s claim for loss and damages, and advised him of the status of this investigation. The coverage determination issued by State Farm for Mr. Osteen’s claim was based upon State Farm’s investigation of the loss. Further, State Farm advised Mr. Osteen that any additional documentation to be provided to State Farm by him would be considered. Based upon the above, there is no evidence to substantiate Mr. Osteen’s claim that State Farm denied any of the claim without conducting a reasonable investigation based upon available information. Florida Statute § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f) State Farm denies any violation of § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), which provides: 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. State Farm has not acted in violation of the above-referenced statute at any time. Further, there are absolutely no facts or evidence contained in the Notice to substantiate the allegation that State Farm has acted in violation of this section. To the contrary, State Farm has properly investigated Mr. Osteen’s claim for loss and damages, and advised him of the status of this investigation. The coverage determination issued by State Farm for Mr. Osteen’s claim was based upon State Farm’s investigation of the loss. Further, State Farm advised Mr. Osteen that any additional documentation to be provided to State Farm by him would be considered. Based upon the above, there is no evidence to substantiate Mr. Osteen’s claim that State Farm failed to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of the basis in the insurance policy for the denial of the claim. Claim Denial State Farm properly investigated Mr. Osteen’s claim for loss and damages. This allegation is without basis, and the Notice again fails to allege any facts or circumstances whatsoever that would provide any support for this allegation. Notably, at no point prior to the filing of the Civil Remedy Notice had State Farm denied Mr. Osteen’s claim. Rather, State Farm determined that the amount of Mr. Osteen’s covered damages related to this claim fell below the applicable deductible under the subject policy of insurance. Moreover, State Farm has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of insurance claims and has complied with the same at all times during the investigation of Mr. Osteen’s claim. The standards and methods utilized by State Farm in examining its claims have met and exceeded its obligations and industry standards. State Farm has conducted the handling of this claim according to such standards and the Notice fails to allege any factual support or evidence to substantiate this allegation. Claim Delay State Farm denies that it has caused a “claim delay.” This allegation is without basis, and the Notice again fails to allege any facts or circumstances whatsoever that would provide any support for this allegation. State Farm has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of insurance claims and has complied with the same at all times during the investigation of Mr. Osteen’s claim. The standards and methods utilized by State Farm in examining its claims have met and exceeded its obligations and industry standards. State Farm has conducted the handling of this claim according to such standards and Mr. Osteen has failed to allege any factual support or evidence to substantiate his allegation that State Farm has caused a “claim delay.” Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer State Farm has acted fairly and honestly towards Mr. Osteen at all times. At no time has State Farm acted dishonestly or unfairly towards Mr. Osteen. All of State Farm’s actions have been performed in good faith and for the purpose of moving his claim toward a just and proper determination of coverage under the subject policy of insurance. To that end, State Farm determined that the amount of Mr. Osteen’s covered damages related to this claim fell below the applicable deductible under the subject policy of insurance. Thus, there is no amount owed under the terms of the subject insurance policy. Further, State Farm advised Mr. Osteen that any additional documentation to be provided to State Farm by him would be considered. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation have been provided in the Notice. To the contrary, as outlined above, State Farm promptly initiated an investigation into the damages allegedly caused by the loss and advised Mr. Osteen of State Farm’s coverage determination. As a result, there is no evidence that State Farm made an unsatisfactory settlement offer. Unfair Trade Practice State Farm denies that it has an “unfair trade practice.” This allegation is without basis, and the Notice again fails to allege any facts or circumstances whatsoever that would provide any support for this allegation. State Farm has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of insurance claims and has complied with the same at all times during the investigation of Mr. Osteen’s claim. The standards and methods utilized by State Farm in examining its claims have met and exceeded its obligations and industry standards. State Farm has conducted the handling of this claim according to such standards and the Notice has failed to allege any factual support or evidence to substantiate the allegation that State Farm has an “unfair trade practice.” State Farm has acted fairly and with due diligence throughout the handling of Mr. Osteen’s claim. State Farm has properly determined that the amount of Mr. Osteen’s covered damages related to this claim fell below the applicable deductible under the subject policy of insurance, which was done in good faith and strictly in accordance with the terms, conditions, exceptions, exclusions, endorsements and limitations of Mr. Osteen’s policy and Florida law. To the extent that this reply does not fully address and respond to the allegations set forth by the Notice, such deficiency is the direct result of the lack of specificity and the overall vague nature of the allegations contained therein. Nevertheless, State Farm disputes all facts alleged in the Notice, denies all allegations in the Notice, and relies upon the facts cited above and throughout its response to the Notice and in opposition to the same. Additionally, State Farm asserts that all actions it has taken in response to Mr. Osteen’s claim have been done in good faith and for the purpose of fair, just and timely disposition of the same. This letter or any act or failure to act on the part of State Farm or any agent or representative of State Farm should not be construed as a waiver of any rights or defenses, including but not limited to proper Notice and service, available to State Farm by contract or at law as all such rights and defenses are specifically reserved. Please contact us if you have any questions.
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