Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     804524
Filing Accepted:  1/31/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
FARAG   First Name   REMON
Street Address * 179 SUNWARD AVE.
City, State Zip * PALM HARBOR, FL 34684
Email Address * STEVEN@CROSKEYLAW.ORG
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   FARAG   First Name   REMON
Policy # * HOH271798 Claim #* H010023159
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* STEVEN First Name * CROSKEY Initial AT
Street Address* 1644 BLANDING BLVD.
City, State Zip* JACKSONVILLE , FLORIDA 32210
Email Address * STEVEN@CROSKEYLAW.ORG
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   HERITAGE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 14407
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* RENEE GILMORE
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
Claim Delay
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Unfair Trade Practice
* Statutory provision(s) which the insurer allegedly violated.
 
624.155(1)(b)(1) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests.
624.155(1)(b)(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.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g) Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h) Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Coverage A – Dwelling: Insurer is required to cover damage incurred by an insured event to the Insured’s dwelling. Insurer is required to cover damage that Insured has claim coverage for.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

On or about August 5, 2024, Claimants suffered loss to their Insured Property as a result of a windstorm. The Claimant reported same loss to the Insurer subsequently thereafter, and the Insurer had the insured Property inspected. The Insurer denied the claim despite Claimant’s roofing company, loss consultant, and engineer indicating that there is clear wind damage to the roof and interior damage from wind driven rain. The Insurer refuses to acknowledge independent engineering reports in order to deny the claim. As a result, Claimant asserts that the Insurer is attempting to undermine the cost of repairs and damage to the Insured Property identified by the Claimant. Moreover, the Insurer is failing or refusing to pay for a replacement of the roof despite the circumstances indicating that more than 25% of the total roof area or roof section of the Property needs to be repaired, replaced or recovered, all within a 12-month period. Claimant asserts that all of these things taken into consideration, along with everything described below, and also each one individually, the Insurer acting in bad faith and not fairly towards the Claimant based off of the circumstances. In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. The Insurer breached this duty in the adjustment of this claim, by failing to apply the insurance policy language to its coverage analysis by, inter alia, unreasonably underpaying a claim with knowledge of higher costs being required to restore the property to its pre-loss condition. Accordingly, the Insurer’s conduct as described herein was inappropriate. Furthermore, by failing to justify any of Insurer’s actions and omissions with policy language, the Insurer is actively misrepresenting a fact material to Insured’s claim, materially misrepresenting the policy, prejudicially investigating the claim, and wrongfully denying and/or limiting coverage based upon these misrepresentations. Specifically, the Insurer knew or had cause to know the amount tendered was insufficient to restore the property to its pre-loss condition; thus the Insurer (1) failed to act in good faith and due diligence to resolve claims; (2) placed the Insurer’s financial interest before that of the Insureds; (3) delayed benefit payments to Insured; (4) unfairly looked for ways to reduce Insured’s recovery; (5) writing to justify their settlement amount; (6) failed to pay the full benefit owed to Insureds; (7) misrepresented the insurance policy provision(s) to the Insured; (8) failed to provide a certified copy of the applicable insurance policy after written request was made as if to further distance the Insured from being able to negotiate this claim with a certified policy in the Insured’s possession; (9) failed to promptly pay the full benefit owed to the Insured; and (10) failed to correct its mistake(s) prior to entry of this civil remedy. These actions and omissions are all inherently deceptive and unfair to any person insured by them. Insurer’s misconduct needlessly increasing the likelihood of continued damage to the Insured Property. NOTICE: This notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section. It appears Insurer has a pattern of violating, at the very least, Florida Statute 624.155(1)(b)(1) and also 627.70131(5)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) and 627.70131(1)(a). Undersigned Counsel is aware of numerous other claims where Insurer failed to act in good faith in resolving residential property and casualty insurance claims. Many of these instances are recorded in the Civil Remedy Notice database which indicates these are general business practices for the Insurer. Insurer’s wrongful conduct and omissions include, but are not limited to those identified above and the following: (1) claim delay; (2) not conducting full and prompt investigation; (3) not treating the Insured with good faith claims conduct; (4) looking for ways to deny, reduce, or delay recovery to Insured; (5) holding back and failing to pay the claim, clearly owed; (6) not adjusting the claim and evaluating the loss property promptly and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to the Insured; (7) failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims; (8) not training, supervising or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made, but rather placing the company’s interests before the policyholder’s interests; (9) establishing severity control initiatives and otherwise establishing a culture of not fully and promptly paying claims following losses; (10) failing to pay the full amount of the Insured’s damage despite knowing it must do so; (11) ignoring the standard industry practice of including overhead and profit onto a multi-trade claims report while knowing or having cause to know about the claim covering multiple trades. There may be further wrongful conduct which has not been made known to the Insureds. Certain conduct or actions cannot be verified without a review of the Insurer’s claims file and claim guidelines. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, Insurer must: (1) admit the misconduct referenced above was incorrect; (2) immediately provide a certified copy of the applicable policy hereto; (3) immediately tender full value of this claim in order to restore the Insured Property to its pre-loss condition; (4) act fairly and honestly towards the Insured, and with due regard for the Insured’s interest in attempting to settle the claim; (5) pay statutory interest on the amount of unpaid contractual damages from the date the claim was reported; (6) cease and desist all present and future bad faith actions with regard to the Insured’s claim. Failure to cure all defects during the 60-day safe harbor period may result in additional extra-contractual damages. Claimant incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein the facts asserted in the Complaint, and all Amended Complaint(s), filed in Pinellas County, Florida on January 28, 2025, case no.: 25-000848-CO.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
Steven@croskeylaw.org 08-22-2025 Claimant hereby withdraws this Civil Remedy Notice.
ncarlisle@heritagepci.com 03-10-2025 March 10, 2025 VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION Florida Department of Insurance Civil Remedy Section 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Complainant: Remon Farag Insured: Remon Farag Insurer: Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company DFS File No.: 804524 Claim No: H010023159 Policy No.: HOH271798 Address: 179 Sunward Ave., Palm Harbor, FL 34684 Dear Madam and/or Sir: Please allow this correspondence to serve as Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company’s (“Heritage”) official response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation (“Notice”), Filing Number 804524, filed on behalf of Remon Farag (“Complainant”). The Department accepted the Notice on January 31, 2025. While Heritage welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Notice filed concerning this claim, it responds to it specifically denying each and every allegation contained in the Notice. Heritage believes that the Notice should be rejected and returned by the Department of Financial Services as it fails to comply with the specific information requirements as set forth in Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation document provisions as promulgated in Florida Statute §624.155 and Florida Case law. First, although the Notice identified Renee Gilmore, the Notice failed to identify all the person and persons representing Heritage from the Claims department, which supervisor, management, agents, and adjuster, including following representative and adjusters, and vendors who are most responsible for knowledgeable of the facts giving rise to the allegation in the Notice, as explicitly required. Additionally, Florida Statute §624.155(3)(b)(2) requires the Complainant to “describe the facts and circumstances giving rise to the insurer’s violation” to enable the insurer to investigate and resolve the claim. Contrary to the requirement set forth in the statute, this Notice contains overbroad and incorrect allegations, which stem only from the Complainant’s opinions regarding the value of their own claim and, therefore, the Complainant’s opinions regarding Heritage’s adjustment of this claim. The Notice contains a list of violations that Heritage has allegedly committed but fails to provide an adequate basis in support of those allegations and, on that basis alone, fails to satisfy the basic requirements of an otherwise proper Notice. Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021); Fla. Stat. §§ 624.155 and 626.9541. Moreover, Florida Statute §624.155(3)(b)(4) requires the Complainant to refer to specific policy language that is relevant to the alleged violation, if any. The Notice is legally insufficient because it does not indicate the policy language violated or which specific Section or policy term. Therefore, the Notice failed to provide sufficient notice to Heritage regarding the provision allegedly violated. Additionally, the Notice failed the Insurer’s address and the Insured’s e-mail address, as specifically required. As such, the Notice does not comply with Florida law and is legally insufficient. Notwithstanding the deficiencies, for clarification, Heritage provides a brief history of the claim: Subject to its terms, endorsements, limitations, exclusions, and conditions, the Complainant was issued policy HOH271798 for the property at 179 Sunward Ave., Palm Harbor, FL 34684. The insurance policy applies to direct physical loss of or damage to covered property at the premises described in the policy's declarations or resulting from any covered cause of loss as described in the policy. Upon receiving the Complainant’s first notice of loss on August 6, 2024, claiming damages from Hurricane Debby on August 5, 2024, Heritage promptly assigned claim number H010023159. An acknowledgment letter with a Bill of Rights was submitted to Complainant on the same day. In the meantime, Heritage enlisted the services of a field adjuster to coordinate an inspection of the alleged damage caused by the alleged Hurricane. Complainant requested it to occur on August 8, 2024. The on-site inspection documents the property's exterior and interior conditions of the property. Present for the inspection was Complainant, who pointed out damages in the property. On August 10, 2024, Heritage contracted with Tornado Construction of Florida to install a tarp on the roof and prevent future damage to the insured’s property. On September 6, 2024, Heritage retained an independent engineering company, Fulcrum Forensics, to reinspect the property and provide an opinion on the causation and origin of the reported damage. According to the report, the engineer opined that “no storm-created openings were present in the various roof coverings at the subject property.” Other damages were observed in the form of wear and tear resulting from weathering and age-related deterioration of the shingles; some mechanical damage was also noted. The engineer thus opined that no significant wind damage in the form of creased/torn/missing shingles was observed on the roof of the subject property other than two creased cap shingle corners resulting from wind. As to the interior damage, the staining observed in the hall bathroom was moisture intruding through the deteriorated flashing around the plumbing room vent. Based on the coloration and extent of the staining and damage, the leaks occurred for many months before the engineer’s site inspection and were not the result of a one-time storm event. On September 18, 2024, after conducting a reasonable investigation based on available information to Heritage, and in accordance with its obligations under §627.70131, Fla. Stat., Heritage timely issued a letter including a written explanation of the coverage decision to Complainant, which included pertinent facts and insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. The letter explained that based on Heritage’s inspection and reinspection of the property, there was no evidence of wind damage to the roof or any exterior elevation. However, there were signs of deterioration, wear, and tear. Because the observed roof condition was caused by normal wear, tear, and deterioration, but not wind and no storm-created opening, Heritage could not provide coverage for the claim. On October 14, 2024, Complainant’s representative filed a Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation (“NOI”). Along with the NOI, Complainant submitted an estimate for repairs. Heritage responded to the NOI maintaining its prior decision of denial of the claim. On January 31, 2025, Complainant’s representative filed this Notice, which Heritage timely responds. Following the Notice, Complainant’s representative filed a lawsuit in the county court of Pinellas County, and Heritage was served on February 3, 2025. Since the filing of the lawsuit, Heritage’s representatives have engaged in settlement negotiations and provided offers to Complainant’s representatives. In accordance with Fla. Stat. §624.155, the Civil Remedy Notice requires Complainant, “to indicate all statutory provisions alleged to have been violated.” The Notice alleges the reasons for the Notice are the following: Claim Denial The Notice fails to state who, how, and when a “claim denial” practice occurred; therefore, it lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute 624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Claim Delay The Notice fails to state who, how, and when a “claim delay” practice occurred; The coverage determination was issued timely, therefore, it lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute 624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer The Notice fails to state who, how, and when an “unsatisfactory settlement offer” practice occurred; therefore, it lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute 624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Unfair Trade Practice The Notice fails to state instances of Heritage’s “unfair trade practice” occurred; therefore, it lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute 624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Further, the Notice filed in this matter alleges Heritage violated the following statutory provisions: 1. 624.155(1)(b)(1): Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its Complainant and with due regard for his or her interests. Response: Heritage denies the allegations contained herein. Accordingly, and as indicated by the facts stated above, Heritage has at all times acted fairly and honestly. Further, Heritage has timely made a coverage determination for the claim based upon the information and documentation obtained and/or received by Heritage during its investigation of the claim and the subject policy. Heritage’s representatives have also negotiated settlement negotiations with the Complainant’s representatives. Therefore, this is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. 2. 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. Response: Heritage denies the allegations contained herein. Accordingly, and as indicated by the facts stated above, Heritage has at all times acted fairly and honestly. Further, Heritage has timely made a coverage determination for the claim based upon the information and documentation obtained and/or received by Heritage during its investigation of the claim and the subject policy. Heritage’s representatives have also negotiated settlement negotiations with the Complainant’s representatives. Therefore, this is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. 3. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. Response: Heritage denies the allegations contained herein. Accordingly, and as indicated by the facts stated above, Heritage has always acted fairly and honestly. Further, Heritage has timely made a coverage determination for the claim based upon the information and documentation obtained and/or received by Heritage during its investigation of the claim and the subject policy. Heritage requested an inspection with a field adjuster and assigned an engineering company to reinspect the property. Additionally, Complainant failed to specify the instances where Heritage failed “to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.” Therefore, this is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. 4. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b): Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. Response: Heritage denies the allegations contained herein. Accordingly, and as indicated by the facts stated above, Heritage has always acted fairly and honestly. Further, Heritage has timely made a coverage determination for the claim based upon the information and documentation obtained and/or received by Heritage during its investigation of the claim and the subject policy. Additionally, Complainant failed to specifically identify the “misrepresenting facts or insurance policy provision” allegedly committed by Heritage. As such, this is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. 5. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c): Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. Response: Heritage denies the allegations contained herein. Accordingly, and as indicated by the facts stated above, Heritage has always promptly acknowledged communications and acted promptly in furtherance of the resolutions of the claim. Further, Heritage has timely made a coverage determination for the claim based upon the information and documentation obtained and/or received by Heritage during its investigation of the claim and the subject policy. The Notice does not specifically identify instances where Heritage failed "to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications." Therefore, this is a broad allegation without specific support. 6. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d): Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information. Response: Heritage denies the allegations contained herein. Heritage has promptly taken substantial action to investigate Complainant’s claim. As mentioned, Heritage promptly assigned a field adjuster to inspect and an engineering firm to investigate the claim. Further, in contrast to this allegation, Heritage has timely made a coverage determination of the claim based upon the information and documentation obtained and/or received by Heritage during its investigation of the claim and the subject policy. Therefore, this is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. 7. 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. Response: Heritage denies the allegations contained herein. Accordingly, and as indicated by the facts stated above, Heritage has conducted a reasonable investigation based on available information and made a coverage determination in reference to Complainant’s claim based upon the information and documentation obtained and/or received by Heritage during its investigation of the claim and the subject policy. The Notice fails to specifically identify instances where Heritage failed “to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured [. . .].” Therefore, this allegation is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and without merit. 8. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g): Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim. Response: Heritage denies the allegations contained herein. Accordingly, and as indicated by the facts stated above, Heritage has always promptly acted in furtherance of the resolutions of the claim. Further, in contrast to this allegation, Heritage has conducted a reasonable investigation based on available information and made a coverage determination in reference to Complainant’s claim based upon the information and documentation obtained and/or received by Heritage during its investigation of the claim and the subject policy. The documentation and information received and obtained by Heritage in its investigation of Complainant’s claim do not support a covered loss as demanded by Complainant. Therefore, this is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. 9. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h): Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary. Response: Heritage denies the allegations contained herein. Accordingly, and as indicated by the facts stated above, Heritage has at all times acted fairly and honestly. Further, Heritage has timely made a coverage determination of the claim based upon the information and documentation obtained and/or received by Heritage during its investigation of the claim and the subject policy. The Notice fails to specifically identify instances where Heritage failed “to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary [. . .].” . Therefore, this is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. As detailed by the facts stated above, Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company did not violate any of the statutes mentioned above. Heritage diligently and thoroughly investigated the subject claim, followed up with the Complainant for inspection and reinspection, and provided a coverage determination. The purpose of the Civil Remedy Notice is to provide the insurer notice of the issue its Complainant has with the claim and what it is seeking to remedy that issue. However, it is important to note that Insurers are not required to pay any amount demanded by their Complainants to avoid a bad-faith claim. Rousso v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82328, at *14-15 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 13, 2010). The Florida Supreme Court has held that an insurer's appropriate response to a Civil Remedy Notice filed pursuant to Fla. Stat. 624.155 is “based upon the insurer's good-faith evaluation of what is owed on the insurance contract.” Vest v. Travelers Ins. Co., 753 So. 2d 1270, 1275 (Fla 2000). The Court further stated, “What is owed on the contract is . . . governed by whether all conditions precedent for payment contained within the policy have been met.” Id. For its part, an insurer “must evaluate a claim based upon proof of loss required by the policy and its expertise in advance of a determination by a court or arbitration.” Id. at 1275-76. See also Julien. Heritage’s position is that it has complied, in good faith, with these obligations. Furthermore, the Complainant’s Notice seeks cures for the alleged defects. However, the “cures” sought are improper pursuant to Florida Case law. Specifically, the case of Talat Enterprises, Inc., v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 753 So.2d 1278, 1281 (Fla. 2000), provides that the scope of what can be “cured” is limited to the alleged non-payment of the contractual amount due the Complainant. Talat also commented that “[i]t naturally follows that for there to be a ‘cure,’ what had to be ‘cured’ is the non-payment of the contractual amount due the Complainant. In the context of a first-party insurance claim, the contractual amount due to the Complainant is the amount owed pursuant to the express terms and conditions of the policy after all of the conditions precedent of the insurance policy in respect to payment are fulfilled....” As a result, only the demanded “cures” relating to the payment for covered damages are proper and legal. Although the Complainant demanded several actions from Heritage in the Notice to cure the alleged violations, none of the enumerated cures propose a clear solution for Heritage. Complainant indicated that Heritage must “(1) admit the misconduct referenced above was incorrect; (2) immediately provide a certified copy of the applicable policy hereto; (3) immediately tender full value of this claim in order to restore the Insured Property to its pre-loss condition; (4) act fairly and honestly towards the Insured, and with due regard for the Insured’s interest in attempting to settle the claim; (5) pay statutory interest on the amount of unpaid contractual damages from the date the claim was reported; (6) cease and desist all present and future bad faith actions with regard to the Insured’s claim.” Although Heritage denied coverage for the claim at issue, it is unclear what amount the Complainant seeks. If Heritage pays an unspecified amount to resolve the claim, it is unclear if this would be sufficient to cure this Notice and resolve the lawsuit filed within the court of Pinellas County. Without a direct and unambiguous indication of how the alleged violations can be cured, the Notice failed to comply with Florida law and is legally insufficient. In short, as in Russo, the Notice reflects “a shotgun-blast effort to hit a lot of targets with a single salvo. This approach is contrary to the purpose of the statute.” The Notice must reflect a good-faith effort to inform Heritage of how it has fallen short of its obligations under the policy and what it can do to fix its shortcomings. Thus, the Notice is insufficient as a matter of law. Under § 624.155, Heritage is entitled not only to a clear proposed solution, but also more and accurate details about how Heritage fell short of its obligations to provide coverage pursuant to the terms of the insurance agreement. As such, the Notice is deficient, and the Complainant has failed to comply with several conditions precedent to bringing a claim under § 624.155. Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company believes that the Notice should be rejected and returned by the Department of Financial Services due to its failure to comply with Florida Statute §624.155 and Florida Case law. Moreover, regardless of the rejection, Heritage denies all allegations contained in the Notice and submits there are no violations. While this response is meant to be comprehensive, Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company’s response above is based upon the limited information provided in the Notice and the information we have to date. If the Complainant feels that Heritage does not have all the facts, please inform Heritage immediately. In closing, Heritage denies each and every assertion of bad faith in the Notice. And, notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this letter should be construed as a waiver or surrender of the policy terms, limitations, exclusions, conditions or agreements, nor should this letter be considered an exhaustive recitation of the deficiencies in the Notice. Heritage reserves the right to supplement its response at a later time. Should the Department have any questions, concerns, or require any additional information regarding this matter, please feel free to contact the undersigned at your convenience. Sincerely, /s/ Priscila Ferreira Priscila Ferreira, Esq. Claims Counsel Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Co.
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