Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     801459
Filing Accepted:  1/16/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
CABRERA   First Name   PABLO
Street Address * 5472 26TH PL SW
City, State Zip * NAPLES, FL 34116
Email Address * MH@WEKLAW.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   CABRERA   First Name   PABLO
Policy # * SFLH1101054 Claim #* 62422
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* HENDRIX First Name * MERYL Initial
Street Address* 800 EAST BROWARD BLVD SUITE 510
City, State Zip* FORT LAUDERDALE , FLORIDA 33301
Email Address * MH@WEKLAW.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   SAFEPOINT INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 15341
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* RYAN WELCH
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
Claim Delay
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Unfair Trade Practice
Other : Misstatement of policy terms and conditions
* 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)(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.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

AGREEMENT We will provide the insurance described in this policy in return for the premium and compliance with all applicable provisions of this policy. SECTION I - PROPERTY COVERAGES A. Coverage A – Dwelling 1. We cover: a. The dwelling on the “residence premises” shown in the Declarations, including structures attached to the dwelling; and PERIL INSURED AGAINST 1. We insure against risk of direct physical loss to property described in Coverages A and B. C. Loss Settlement In this Condition C., the terms “cost to repair or replace” and “replacement cost” do not include the increased costs incurred to comply with the enforcement of any ordinance or law, except to the extent that coverage for these increased costs is provided in E.11. Ordinance Or Law under PROPERTY COVERAGES. I. Loss Payment We will adjust all losses with you. We will pay you unless some other person is named in the policy or is legally entitled to receive payment. Loss will be payable 60 days after we receive your proof of loss and: 1. Reach written agreement with you; 2. There is an entry of a final judgment; or 3. There is a filing of an appraisal award with us
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Wendy and Pablo Cabrera (“Insureds”) purchased an insurance policy ("Policy") from Safepoint Insurance Company (“Carrier”) with effective coverage on the date of loss, on or about September 28, 2022, and Policy number SFLH1101054 to insure their property located at 5472 26TH Place SW Naples, Florida 34116 ("Property"). On or about September 28, 2022, the Property suffered wind damage to the main roofing system, flat roofing system and exterior as well as subsequent water damage to the interior as a result of Hurricane Ian ("Loss"). Upon becoming aware of the nature of the loss and damage to the Property, the loss was reported to the Carrier within the time afforded by Florida Statute and the policy. The Carrier acknowledged the claim and assigned claim number 62422 ("Claim") to the Loss. On April 17, 2024, Field Adjuster Ryan Welch, an employee of the Carrier inspected the Insureds Property. Approximately two (2) weeks after the inspection the Insureds claim was denied in its entirety by way of correspondence dated May 1, 2024. The Carrier, through Mr. Welch, denied its Insureds claim for prejudice rather than conducting a meaningful investigation into the claim to try and find coverage for its insureds. Due to the Insureds lack of familiarity with homeowners’ claims the Insured had retained the services of a Public Adjuster to assist them with the claims process. A representative from Elevate Claim Adjusters, LLC (“Elevate”) inspected the property and provided a detailed estimate of damages to the Carrier totaling $84,343.50. Since the Insureds became aware of the nature of the loss and damages to the Property, they have mitigated further damage to the Property by making temporary repairs to keep further water from entering the home and have cooperated in all ways possible with every request of the Carrier. The Insureds have fully complied with all applicable Policy provisions requiring cooperation with the investigation; however, the Carrier has unequivocally failed to properly adjust this Claim. Rather than paying the actual damages and/or trying to settle with the Insureds, the Carrier has continued its failures to act in good faith by delaying any prompt resolution of the claim. The Carrier has not attempted, in good faith, to settle this claim when, under the circumstances, it could and should have done so had it acted fairly and honestly toward the policyholders and with due regard to the policyholders' interests. As a result of this incident, the Insureds have suffered damage to the Property. As a direct consequence of the Carrier’s failure to adjust this Loss in good faith and make any payment, the Insureds continue to be without adequate compensation for the damages sustained at the Insureds' Property. By stating the above detailed facts, it is clear that the Carrier has violated the following Florida statutes: • 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 Insureds and with due regard for their interest; • The Carrier has no evidence that the roof was leaking prior to Hurricane Ian, however, it continues to refuse to pay for the damages caused by Hurricane Ian. • 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 To date, the Carrier has acted in bad faith by failing to provide coverage under the Policy to the Insureds. The Insureds’ property continues to be in disarray as the Insureds are without funds to put their property back to its pre-loss condition. As a direct result of the Carrier’s breach of the above Florida Statutes, the Insureds were forced to seek the help of licensed professionals to assist them, including legal counsel. Due to the amount of time that has passed since the information discussed above, there is irrefutable evidence that the Carrier knowingly and intentionally, and in bad faith delays the settlement process in order to further disadvantage the Insureds. The financial detriment caused to the Insureds is a direct result of the Carrier’s reckless treatment of the claims process. The Insureds submitted to every request made by the Carrier in a timely fashion including but not limited to making their property available for inspection, submitting an estimate for repairs and submitting to a recorded statement, which is now being used against them without any reasonable or factual basis. The Carrier failed at every step of the process to adequately establish or identify the basis of its gross mismanagement of the claim. To deny the Insured the benefit clearly due and owing under the Policy, for which they have time and time again been making premium payments for and after they have satisfied all of their obligations is morally and ethically reprehensible, and reeks of Unfair Claims Practice and Bad Faith. Upon information and belief, the aforementioned actions complained of, among others, were made by the Carrier so often as to constitute a general business practice, evidencing a motive to enhance the Carrier’s profits, and designed to cause a detrimental effect to its policyholders. The above clearly depicts that the Carrier adjusted this claim in bad faith, continue to act in bad faith towards its Insureds, and that the Carrier is in direct violation of Unfair Claims Practices. This notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, should the Carrier fail to cure the violations set forth in this Civil Remedy Notice within the given cure period. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, the Carrier must: (1) Immediately tender $84,344.00 in US dollars to the Insureds which is fairly owed to the Insureds under the insurance policy and would reasonably compensate the Insureds in order to put their Property back to its pre-loss condition; (2) Agree to reimburse the Insureds’ reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for having to become involved to resolve the claim; (3) Agree to reimburse the Insureds for interest on the amount of benefits that was found to be due and owing to the Insureds, relating back to the date of loss.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
mbakas@safepointins.com 03-17-2025 March 17, 2025 VIA EMAIL: MH@WEKLAW.COM Meryl Hendrix, Esq. 800 E. Broward Blvd., Suite 510 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 RE: Insured: Pablo Cabrera Claim Number: 62422 Policy: SFLH1101054 Date of Loss: 9/28/22 CRN Filing Number: 801459 Dear Sir/Madam: This is the formal response of SafePoint Insurance Company (“SafePoint”) to the purported Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (“Purported Notice”) that was filed on behalf of Pablo Cabrera (“Complainant” / “Insured”). The Florida Department of Financial Services accepted the Purported Notice, in form only, on January 16, 2025. The Purported Notice was filed in connection with Complainant’s insurance claim for property damage. The Purported Notice names SafePoint and alleges Claim Denial, Claim Delay, Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer, Unfair Trade Practice and Misstatement of policy terms and conditions supposedly in violation of Sections 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), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f) and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g), Florida Statutes. The Purported Notice is a legal nullity for the reasons discussed below.^ SafePoint specifically denies each and every allegation contained in the Purported Notice. Additionally, SafePoint denies that it violated these or any statutes, Florida law or policy provisions regarding the claim adjustment of this matter. ^1 SafePoint reserves all (and waives none) of its rights or defenses, including its right to assert additional deficiencies in the Purported Notice. Under Section 624.155(3), Florida Statutes, a claimant must file a notice with the Florida Department of Financial Services (“the Department”) at least 60 days before filing a Statutory “bad faith” lawsuit. This notice is commonly referred to as a “civil remedy notice” (“CRN”). Section 624.155(3), Florida Statutes sets out five pieces of information which must be included in a CRN: 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; and 5. A statement that the notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section. The statute also provides that, in addition to these five requirements, the CRN shall be “on a form provided by the [Department] and shall state with specificity . . . such other information as the department may require.” (emphasis added); The Florida Supreme Court has held that Section 624.155, Florida Statutes “must be strictly construed.” Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1283 (Fla. 2000). Strict construction is appropriate as “this statute is in derogation of the common law.” Id. When interpreting a statute in derogation of the common law, “[a] court will presume that such a statute was not intended to alter the common law other than as clearly and plainly specified in the statute.” Time Ins. Co., Inc. v. Burger, 712 So. 2d 389, 393 (Fla. 1998). Accordingly, such an interpretation would mean that statutory bad faith cases cannot proceed unless the claimant has specifically complied will all statutory requirements. After the promulgation of this statute, the Department created a CRN form: Form DFS-10-363. Form DFS-10-363 lays out 15 requirements: 1. Complainants Name; 2. Complainants Address; 3. Complainants E-mail address; 4. Complainant type (Insured or otherwise); 5. Insured’s Name; 6. Insurance Policy Number; 7. Insurance Claim Number; 8. Attorney’s Name; 9. Attorney’s Address; 10. Attorney’s E-mail Address; 11. Type of Insurer (authorized or otherwise); 12. Name of Insurer; 13. Address of Insurer; 14. Type of Insurance (Commercial Property & Casualty or otherwise); and 15. Reason for Notice. As these requirements are all information required by the Department, according to Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, they each must be stated with specificity. The Purported Notice fails to meet the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 624.155 on the following grounds: Deficiency #1 The Purported Notice lists the Insured as “PABLO CABRERA” and fails to list the additional Insured on the property, “WENDY CABRERA”. Thus, the CRN is invalid for noncompliance with Section 624.155(3)(b)(3), Florida Statutes. Deficiency # 2 Section 624.155(3)(b)(4), Florida Statutes, requires the CRN to reference 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 Complainant is the Insured and not a third-party claimant; therefore, the Purported Notice must include specific language from the subject policy that is relevant to the alleged violations. It does not. Rather, the Purported Notice lists vague headings and overbroad language from an unknown insurance policy. Thus, the Purported Notice is invalid for noncompliance with Section 624.155(3)(b)(4), Florida Statutes. This deficiency applies to all allegations in the Purported Notice, including but not limited to Claim Denial, Claim Delay, Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer, Unfair Trade Practice and Misstatement of policy terms and conditions supposedly in violation of Sections 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), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f) and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g), Florida Statutes. On March 3, 2021, the Fourth District Court of Appeal issued a relevant opinion in Junior Julien v. United Property and Casualty Insurance Company, No. 4D19-2763. In Julien, the insured appealed the circuit court’s dismissal of his lawsuit against his insurer, finding that the insured’s Civil Remedy Notice (“CRN”) failed to satisfy the statutory requirement that an insured “state with specificity” the policy language and the statutory provisions at issue. In his CRN, the insured cited numerous statutory provisions and listed nearly every provision in the insurance policy. On appeal, the Fourth District affirmed the dismissal and agreed with the circuit court that the CRN failed to specify the statutory and policy provisions at issue. Like the CRN in Julien, the Purported Notice fails to “state with specificity” the policy language at issue. Deficiency # 3 Section 624.155(3)(b)(2), Florida Statutes, requires that the CRN state with specificity the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation. The Purported Notice does not supply specific facts or circumstances that explain the allegations. Rather, the Purported Notice asserts general allegations consisting of conclusory and inaccurate statements rather than specific allegations of fact regarding any alleged misconduct or statutory violations. For example, the Purported Notice states, “On or about September 28, 2022, the Property suffered wind damage to the main roofing system, flat roofing system and exterior as well as subsequent water damage to the interior as a result of Hurricane Ian...” However, these statements are conclusory, inaccurate and without factual basis. This is a claim for roof and interior damage to the property allegedly caused by Hurricane Ian, that was late reported by Claimant’s public adjuster, Elevate on April 4, 2024, five hundred and fifty-four (554) days after the alleged date of loss, September 28, 2022. On April 17, 2024, SafePoint timely inspected the subject property and documented any visible damage including, historical roof repairs. On April 26, 2024, a recorded statement was taken with the Insured who indicated that there were no prior leaks to the roof. However, evidence of aged and cracked sealant, among other observations, suggests that repairs had been made before the reported event, contradicting the Insured's account. Further, historic roof images showed no storm damage, and the property owner failed to provide evidence of the claimed damage. Additionally, by the time Safepoint was first afforded the opportunity to inspect the subject property, it had been materially changed due to the passage of time with material changes to the roof and structure. The Insureds’ failure to comply with their post-loss duties under the Policy severely prejudiced SafePoint’s investigation of the claim and is a breach of the Duties After Loss provision under the subject Policy, SECTION I – CONDITIONS – B. Duties After Loss. The Insured failed to comply with their post-loss duties as required under the Policy including but not limited to the failure to show the damaged property, failure to submit requested records and documents, failure to provide prompt notice and failure to protect the property. As such, on May 1, 2024, contrary to the Purported Notice erroneous assertion, “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” the Complainant was timely notified in writing and provided a detailed explanation as to why there was not coverage under the Policy in accordance with the investigation and the Policy terms and conditions. Finally, the Purported Notice makes boilerplate recitations of statutes and conclusory statements without the requisite specificity. Specificity is of particular importance for this Purported Notice as Complainant generally alleges that SafePoint “[m]isrepresent[ed] pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to the coverages at issue.” However, the Purported Notice does not set forth any facts regarding any misrepresentations made by SafePoint and does not identify the person or persons who made such misrepresentations. It is evident that the statement of facts falls short of the specificity required by Fla. Stat. §624.155. The above noted deficiencies apply to all allegations in the Purported Notice, including but not limited to Claim Denial, Claim Delay, Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer, Unfair Trade Practice and Misstatement of policy terms and conditions supposedly in violation of Sections 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), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f) and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g), Florida Statutes. Deficiency # 4 The Purported Notice does not supply necessary information that would allow SafePoint to “cure” the alleged violations without paying benefits which are not due and owing to the Complainant, as required by Florida law. The purpose of a Civil Remedy Notice is to provide the insurer an opportunity to “cure” the alleged wrongdoing. Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 753 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). However, Section 624.155, Florida Statute, does not impose on an insurer the obligation to pay whatever an insured demand. Talat, 753 So. 2d at 1282. To the contrary, the Florida Supreme Court holds that the scope of what can be “cured” in responding to a Civil Remedy Notice, is limited to contractual amounts due to the insured. See Talat, 753 So. 2d at 1281. Here the Complainant seeks extracontractual damages including but not limited to, “Agree to reimburse the Insureds’ attorneys’ reasonable fees and costs...” and improperly demanding payment of statutory interest from the “date of loss”. Pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 627.70131, interest begins to accrue from the date the insurer “receives notice” of the claim (not the date of loss). Consequently, the Purported Notice is deficient as it fails to afford SafePoint the opportunity to cure the alleged violations without incurring extracontractual damages. SafePoint is only obligated to pay contractual amounts owed to cure a civil remedy. See id. at 1278. Deficiency #5 Finally, the Complainant failed to respond to each of the fields set forth on the DFS Form with the requisite specificity and as outlined herein as well as including but not limited to, the use of the attorney’s firm’s email address, “MH@WEKLAW.COM” for that of the Complainant. Therefore, the Purported Notice is legally deficient and fails to satisfy the condition precedent to filing a bad faith action. See Pin Pon, 2020 WL 6588379; 2021 WL 824438. STATUTORY ALLEGATIONS 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. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 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. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b): Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c): Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d): Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 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. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 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. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g): Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. The allegations set forth in the Purported Notice are denied as they are mere conclusory allegations unsupported by facts, devoid of logic and intended solely to tarnish SafePoint’s name and reputation. SafePoint has at all times, acted fairly, honestly and in good faith in its dealings with the Complainant. While an insurance carrier is required to settle claims that should be settled, it is not required to settle claims that are legitimately contested. SafePoint unequivocally denies each and every allegation asserted in the Purported Notice. At no time has SafePoint breached any duty to the Complainant. AN INSURER IS NOT REQUIRED TO PAY WHATEVER AMOUNT THE INSURED DEMANDS. Finally, SafePoint retained a field adjuster conducted an inspection of the subject property to investigate the Insured’s claim. Thereafter, Safepoint made a coverage decision pursuant to all applicable policy language and statutes. Please be advised, by this letter, SafePoint neither waives, nor is estopped, from asserting any and all rights it may have in law, or, under the terms of the Policy. In fact, SafePoint hereby again, expressly, and specifically, reserves all of its rights, without exception or limitation. If you have any questions or concerns with this response, or, regarding any other matter, please contact me in writing. Sincerely, /s/ Ari A. Zeltzer Ari A. Zeltzer, Esq. Staff Counsel SafePoint Insurance Cc: Florida Department of Financial Services
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