Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     806155
Filing Accepted:  2/10/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
PARMEE   First Name   STEVE AND SUSAN
Street Address * C/O CARRINGTON JONES, ESQ 3333 S. ORANGE AVE, SUITE 104
City, State Zip * ORLANDO, FL 32806
Email Address * CARRINGTON@MYLAWYERCAN.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   PARMEE   First Name   STEVE AND SUSAN
Policy # * 59-EE-V220-7 Claim #* 59-70W5-85V
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* JONES First Name * CARRINGTON Initial E
Street Address* 3333 S. ORANGE AVE, SUITE 104
City, State Zip* ORLANDO , FL 32806
Email Address * CARRINGTON@MYLAWYERCAN.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):* KYLE PURDY
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Unfair Trade Practice
Claim Delay
* 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)(2) A material misrepresentation made to an insured or any other person having an interest in the proceeds payable under such contract or policy, for the purpose and with the intent of effecting settlement of such claims, loss, or damage under such contract or policy on less favorable terms than those provided in, and contemplated by, such contract or policy.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
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)(g) Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim.
626.9541(1)(i)(4) Failing to pay undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed under first-party property insurance policies within 60 days after an insurer receives notice of a residential property insurance claim, determines the amounts of partial or full benefits, and agrees to coverage, unless payment of the undisputed benefits is prevented by factors beyond the control of the insurer as defined in s. 627.70131(5).
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i) Failing to pay personal injury protection insurance claims within the time periods required by s. 627.736(4)(b).
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

State Farm Florida Insurance Company policy 59-EE-V220-7 provides coverage to Steve Parmee and Susan Parmee for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage A. As such, this is an “all perils” policy and all such losses described above are covered unless they are specifically excluded.
 
* 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 July 7, 2024, Steve Parmee and Susan Parmee (“Insureds”) suffered significant lightning strike damage to their home located at 5139 Fairway Oaks Drive, Windermere, FL 34786. Prior to the loss, State Farm Florida Insurance Company policy 59-EE-V220-7 provides coverage to Steve Parmee and Susan Parmee for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage A. As such, this is an “all perils” policy and all such losses described above are covered unless they are specifically excluded. State Farm Florida Insurance Company issued a homeowner’s insurance policy (policy no. 59-EE-V220-7) for the Insureds’ home. The policy was in effect on the date of loss and affords coverage for lightning strike damage. After providing notice of the loss, the insureds cooperated with State Farm Florida Insurance Company policy 59-EE-V220-7 provides coverage to Steve Parmee and Susan Parmee for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage A and under the policy. As such, this is an “all perils” policy and all such losses described above are covered unless they are specifically excluded. The Insureds cooperated with the investigation of the claim and allowed State Farm Florida Insurance Company to inspect the damages on 07/25/2024. Despite State Farm Florida Insurance Company acknowledging a significant amount of covered damage, State Farm Florida Insurance Company refused to tender full payment to bring the insureds to pre-loss condition. This is a pattern and practice of State Farm Florida Insurance Company, finding that an Insureds damages fell below their deductible and or significant under valuing damages. The insureds home have sustained significant damage which far exceeds their deductible. Specifically the insureds known damage total $1,181,717.07. Fla. Stat. § 624.155. Fla. Stat. 624.155 provides a cause of action for bad faith in first-party claims. Fridman v. Safeco Ins. Co., 185 So. 3d 1214, 1220 (Fla. 2016). These first-party claims are treated the same as third-party claims. Id. at 1221. The question of whether an insurer acted in bad faith is determined by the “totality of the circumstances” standard. Berges v. Infinity Ins. Co., 896 So. 2d 665, 680 (Fla. 2004). This inquiry focuses on the actions of the insurer. Id. at 677. The insurer has a duty to use the degree of care and diligence as a person of ordinary care. Bos. Old Colony Ins. Co. v. Gutierrez, 386 So. 2d 783, 785 (Fla. 1980). The insurer must investigate the facts, give fair consideration to all settlement offers, and settle when a reasonable prudent person would. Id. Additionally, an insurer must not act solely in their own interest in settlement. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. LaForet, 658 So.2d 55, 58 (Fla. 1995). Furthermore, the insurer has the burden to show that there was no realistic possibility of settlement. Powell v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 584 So. 2d 12, 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). 624.155(1)(b) claims: [624.155(1)(b)(1)]: Insurer, State Farm Florida Insurance Company, acted in bad faith under Fla. Stat. 624.155(1)(b)(1) in their dealings with the Insureds by failing to attempt to settle the Insureds’ claims when it could and should have done so had it acted fairly and honestly toward the insured. As such, the insurer must promptly and immediately settle the claim. 624.155(1)(a)(1) claims: Fla. Stat. § 624.155(1)(a)(1) grants a cause of action against an insurer for unfair insurance trade practices under Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i). Contrary to the language of the statute, a remedy exists even “without proof that the insurer committed unfair or deceptive acts with such frequency as to constitute a general business practice.” Dadeland Depot, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 945 So. 2d 1216, 1232 (Fla. 2006). Here, State Farm Florida Insurance Company’s actions constituted bad faith under 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a). [626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a)]: Pursuant to Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), an insurer must adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. Plaintiff may bring a civil action for damages caused by the failure to adopt such standards. Fla. Stat. § 624.155(1)(a)(1). Here, the facts of this loss investigation indicate that Insurer does not have adequate standards for the proper investigation of claims. Here, Insurer has failed to assign competent and unbiased claims personnel. State Farm Florida Insurance Company has not acted honestly or fairly towards its Insureds. State Farm Florida Insurance Company policy 59-EE-V220-7 provides coverage to Steve Parmee and Susan Parmee for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in under coverage A and the policy in its entirety. As such, this is an “all perils” policy and all such losses described above are covered unless they are specifically excluded. State Farm Florida Insurance Company and its adjusters misrepresented the scope and cause of damages to the residence and misapplied exclusions in the policy, namely wear and tear, and “long term” damage, in order to deny or underpay coverage for the majority of the Insureds claim in order to ensure its valuation of the claim would be significantly less than the cost of repair. As is the case here, it has become a general business practice of State Farm Florida Insurance Company to not implement proper claims handling procedures, to hire consultants that routinely ignore or intentionally misidentify relevant evidence, and to not settle claims in good faith when under all circumstances it should have. State Farm Florida Insurance Company regularly undervalues claims in order to avoid issuing payment on losses that it knows are covered under the policy. State Farm Florida Insurance Company also routinely refuses to pay claims in full when it has the ability to do so, waits to see if its insureds contest their coverage determination, as was necessary here, and, only then, will it capriciously invoke appraisal. State Farm Florida Insurance Company knows that by opening up a small amount of coverage, it can maintain its ability to demand appraisal later on and deprive its Insured access to the courts. Its insureds are then forced to pay the cost of their own appraiser and potentially an umpire, which can total several thousands of dollars, before it is ever willing to perform repairs or issue benefits that were already owed under the policy. State Farm Florida Insurance Company has developed this deliberate strategy in order to deter its Insureds from challenging its coverage determinations and hinder their ability to seek additional payment for monies owed under the policy. State Farm Florida Insurance Company’s practice of not adjusting losses in good faith in accordance with section 627.70131, Florida Statues, unnecessarily delays resolution of its claims and leaves claimants like the Insureds with no choice but to incur further time and expense just to be fully indemnified pursuant to the terms of their contract with State Farm Florida Insurance Company. State Farm Florida Insurance Company has completely abdicated its duty to adjust and has put the onus on its Insureds to spend thousands of dollars in appraisal before State Farm Florida Insurance Company is willing to issue benefits or make repairs that it knows are owed pursuant to the policy. State Farm Florida Insurance Company’s pattern and practice of underrepresenting the actual cost and cause of damages, then demanding appraisal if challenged, is evidence that it does not act fairly or honestly towards the Insured during its adjustment process and that it has failed to implement proper standards for the investigation and handling of its claims. State Farm Florida Insurance Company did not apply appropriate standards in order to properly investigate claims such as the Loss at the Home, which ultimately led to its unfair and dishonest adjustment of the Loss. State Farm Florida Insurance Company has implemented a strategy and approach to the Loss that is unfair and has not attempted to settle the Loss that that the Insured has suffered and continues to suffer. State Farm Florida Insurance Company can cure its bad faith conduct by: 1) accepting the insured’s claim as compensable, and agreeing to pay the claim in accordance with its loss settlement provision prior to the expiration of the cure period, 2) reaching an amicable settlement of the pending claim prior to the expiration of the cure period, or 3) paying the amount of the estimate for damages ($1,181,717.07) submitted by the insured to State Farm Florida Insurance Company less the insured’s deductible. By doing any of these three things, the insurer will cure its bad faith in this case and extinguish any and all of its liability for all bad faith damages which could be sought pursuant to this Civil Remedy Notice.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
sdornstein@kelleykronenberg.com 04-02-2025 CRN Filing No.: 806155 CRN Filing Date: 2/10/2025 Insured: Steve Parmee and Susan Parmee Complainant: Steve Parmee and Susan Parmee Insurance Carrier: State Farm Florida Insurance Company Policy No.: 59-EE-V220-7 Claim No.: 59-70W5-85V Date of Loss: July 7, 2024 Date Reported: July 16, 2024 Mr. & Mrs. Parmee, We have been retained by State Farm Florida Insurance Company (“State Farm”) to respond to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation (“CRN”) filed with the Department of Financial Services on February 10, 2025, under filing number 806155. Please accept this correspondence as State Farm Florida Insurance Company’s response to the Civil Remedy Notice. State Farm maintains it has not violated any provision of Florida law relative to the above referenced claim. The Civil Remedy Notice filed on behalf of the Complainant is defective on its face and fails to allege sufficient facts in support of many of the purported violations with the required specificity mandated by Florida Statute §624.155. Additionally, State Farm asserts it has acted in good faith in its investigation and in accordance with terms, conditions, definitions, limitations, exclusions, and endorsements contained within the subject insurance policy. Accordingly, State Farm Florida Insurance Company demands the CRN be withdrawn. While State Farm Florida Insurance Company welcomes the opportunity to respond to this CRN and specifically denies each and every allegation contained in the CRN referenced above, State Farm requests the CRN be rejected as it fails to comply with several of the requirements of the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation document provisions as set forth in Florida Statute §624.155 and Florida case law. THE CRN ALLEGATIONS In the CRN, the Complainant alleges State Farm Florida Insurance Company 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 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 settlement under other portion 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)(g) Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim. 626.9541(1)(i)(4) Failing to pay undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed under first party property insurance policies within 60 days after an insurer receives notice of a residential property insurance claim, determines the amounts of partial or full benefits, and agrees to coverage, unless payment of the undisputed benefits is prevented by factors beyond the control of the insurer as define in s. 627.70131(5). 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i) Failing to pay personal injury protection insurance claims within the time periods required by s. 627.736(4)(b). As an initial matter, State Farm denies the alleged violations in their entirety and states that it has acted properly and reasonably in its investigation of this claim. Moreover, State Farm’s position is that the CRN is statutorily deficient in that it cites various statutory violations and does not provide the requisite specificity as to how they were violated. In large part, the cited provisions appear to be nothing more than boilerplate and conclusory language that have no application to the governing facts or law of this claim. To-wit, the CRN alleges a violation of 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i) which regards personal injury protection, which is wholly irrelevant to the subject claim and could never have been violated by State Farm as this claim did not allege any damages under PIP. For a number of reasons, the CRN fails to comply with the requirements of Florida Statutes. First, the CRN requires the Complainant to “reference to specific policy language that is relevant to the violations, if any.” Despite this language, the CRN generally points to “Coverage A.” As such, the CRN fails to set forth specific policy provisions that were violated, and the CRN should be rejected. Without referencing the specific policy language State Farm Florida Insurance Company cannot address the generalized alleged violations or properly respond. Secondly, the subject CRN improperly alleges that in order to cure the subject claim State Farm must either reach a settlement with the Insureds or pay Insured’s estimate of damages in the amount of $1,181,717.07, less any applicable deductible. The court has held that Florida Statute §624.155 “does not impose on an insurer the obligation to pay whatever the insured demands.” Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). Additionally, the CRN is insufficient on its face and should also be rejected since, contrary to the requirements of Florida Statute §624.155, the CRN does not specifically describe the facts or circumstances giving rise to each specific violation alleged against State Farm. Instead, the CRN provides an introductory summary/timeline of the alleged facts before alleging various baseless accusations. Without setting forth facts or circumstances of the alleged violation of policy language, State Farm cannot address the alleged violations or properly response. See Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So. 3d 875, 879 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2021). As will be seen from the facts of this claim, these general allegations are baseless and wholly without merit. Further, the alleged violations conflict with the circumstances of the claim and cite incorrect allegations with no basis in fact. Thus, the CRN is purposefully drafted in a manner which does not allow State Farm proper notice of the allegations or any meaningful opportunity to respond and/or evaluate the claims being asserted. Based upon the foregoing, the CRN is insufficient on its face and should be rejected. Notwithstanding the deficiencies, State Farm denies it committed the alleged acts or violated the statutes cited. Setting forth the correct factual background, State Farm Florida Insurance Company issued Homeowners Policy Number 59-EE-V220-7 (the “Policy”) to Steve Parmee and Susan Parmee (“Insureds”), for the property located at 5139 Fairway Oaks Dr., Windermere, FL 34786 (“Property”), with effective dates of October 23, 2023, through October 23, 2024. The subject claim was reported to State Farm with a date of loss of July 7, 2024, and not reported until July 16, 2024. State Farm promptly acknowledged the claim and contacted the Insured for further information. On or about August 5, 2024, State Farm issued its coverage determination letter. State Farm opened coverage for the claim in the amount of $8,787.79, before application of the deductible. The damages claimed were to electrical equipment within the home due to a lightning strike/electrical surge. State Farm paid for repairs to the allegedly damaged system. It was not until after State Farm had issued its coverage decision for the claim, which was solely reported as damage to electrical equipment from a lightning strike/electrical surge, in October, 2024, that Insureds for the first time claimed roof and interior damage from the lightning storm. State Farm had never been given an opportunity to inspect such damages nor were they reported timely, in violation of the post-loss conditions of the Policy. Notwithstanding the above-mentioned deficiencies, the following are State Farm Florida Insurance Company’s responses to each of the alleged violations noted in the Civil Remedy Notice: Fla. Stat. § 624.155(1)(b)(1): Denied. State Farm conducted a complete, thorough, and timely investigation of the loss to determine coverage for the reported damages. Based on State Farm’s investigation, State Farm determined there was damage consistent with lightning/electrical surge to some systems of the home, which State Farm determined could be repaired. No damages to the roof or interior of the home were reported until after State Farm made its coverage determination. As such, State Farm has been prejudiced in its investigation of the claim. In addition to prejudice, the Insured violated several policy conditions. Disagreement between the parties regarding coverage is not evidence of any bad faith conduct by State Farm. Therefore, no violations of §624.155(1)(b)(1) have occurred. Fla. Stat. § 624.155(1)(b)(3): Denied. State Farm conducted a complete, thorough, and timely investigation of the loss to determine coverage for the reported damages. Based on State Farm’s investigation, State Farm determined there was damage consistent with lightning/electrical surge to some systems of the home, which State Farm determined could be repaired. No damages to the roof or interior of the home were reported until after State Farm made its coverage determination. As such, State Farm has been prejudiced in its investigation of the claim. In addition to prejudice, the Insured violated several policy conditions. Disagreement between the parties regarding coverage is not evidence of any bad faith conduct by State Farm. Therefore, no violations of §624.155(1)(b)(3) have occurred. Fla. Stat. §626.9541(1)(i)(2): Denied. State Farm has not made any material misrepresentations to the Insureds in this matter. The Insureds reported damage to certain electrical equipment following a lightning strike/electrical surge and State Farm timely inspected and paid for such damages. State Farm conducted a complete, thorough, and timely investigation. Based upon the limited facts and circumstances provided in the CRN, the information provided is also insufficient to show a violation occurred under Florida Statutes 626.9541(1)(i)(2). The general allegations made in the CRN are without merit. Therefore, no violations of § 626.9541(1)(i)(2) have occurred. Fla. Stat. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Denied. State Farm has adopted all proper and best practices and standard operating procedures for claims-handling with regard to §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a). State Farm conducted a complete, thorough, and timely investigation. Based upon the limited facts and circumstances provided in the CRN, the information provided is also insufficient to show a violation occurred under Florida Statutes 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a). The general allegations made in the CRN are without merit. Therefore, no violations of § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) have occurred. Fla. Stat. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b): Denied. State Farm has not made any material misrepresentations to the Insureds in this matter relating to policy provisions or coverages. The Insureds reported damage to certain electrical equipment following a lightning strike/electrical surge and State Farm timely inspected and paid for such damages. State Farm conducted a complete, thorough, and timely investigation. Based upon the limited facts and circumstances provided in the CRN, the information provided is also insufficient to show a violation occurred under Florida Statutes 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b). The general allegations made in the CRN are without merit. Therefore, no violations of § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) have occurred. Fla. Stat. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c): Denied. The allegation made in the CRN that State Farm failed to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications is without merit. State Farm promptly acknowledged the Insured’s claim and submissions from Insured and/or Insured’s representatives. Based upon the limited facts and circumstances provided in the CRN, the information provided is also insufficient to show a violation occurred under Florida Statutes 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c). The general allegations made in the CRN are without merit. Therefore, no violations of § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) have occurred. Fla. Stat. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d): Denied. State Farm received the First Notice of Loss for the subject claim on July 16, 2024. State Farm completed its investigation and made payment on August 5, 2024. As such, State Farm conducted a complete, thorough, and timely investigation of the loss utilizing an adjuster to inspect the property and determine coverage for the damages. Overall, the limited facts and circumstances provided in the CRN, the information provided is also insufficient to show a violation occurred under Florida Statutes 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d). The general allegations made in the CRN are without merit. Therefore, no violations of § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) have occurred. Fla. Stat. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g): Denied. State Farm received the First Notice of Loss for the subject claim on July 16, 2024. State Farm completed its investigation and made payment on August 5, 2024. As such, State Farm conducted a complete, thorough, and timely investigation of the loss utilizing an adjuster to inspect the property and determine coverage for the damages. Overall, the limited facts and circumstances provided in the CRN, the information provided is also insufficient to show a violation occurred under Florida Statutes 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g). The general allegations made in the CRN are without merit. Therefore, no violations of § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g) have occurred. Fla. Stat. §626.9541(1)(i)(4): Denied. State Farm received the First Notice of Loss for the subject claim on July 16, 2024. State Farm completed its investigation and made payment on August 5, 2024, within 60 days. Overall, the limited facts and circumstances provided in the CRN, the information provided is also insufficient to show a violation occurred under Florida Statutes 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g). The general allegations made in the CRN are without merit. Therefore, no violations of § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g) have occurred. Fla. Stat. §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i): Denied. The CRN alleges that State Farm violated the subject statute by “Failing to pay personal injury protection insurance claims within the time periods required by s. 627.736(4)(b)” The statute further reads that “[p]ersonal injury protection insurance benefits paid pursuant to this section are overdue if not paid within 30 days after the insurer is furnished written notice of the fact of a covered loss and of the amount of same.” Contrary to the allegations, the subject alleged loss is related to a first party property claim. As such, there is no insurance claim for personal injury protection. Overall, the limited facts and circumstances provided in the CRN, the information provided is also insufficient to show a violation occurred under Florida Statutes 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i). The general allegations made in the CRN are without merit. Therefore, no violations of § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i) have occurred. In closing, State Farm Florida Insurance Company actions in handling the Insured’s claim were prompt, thorough, conducted in accordance with the Policy and Florida law and most importantly, in good faith. Furthermore, State Farm complied with all obligations under the Policy and the Florida Statutes. Therefore, State Farm Florida Insurance Company denies each and every allegation contained in the Notice. State Farm first requests the CRN be rejected for its failure to comply with Florida Statute §624.155 and Florida case law. Regardless of the rejection, as demonstrated above, State Farm has, at all times, acted in good faith, with due diligence, and in accordance with the terms of its insurance policy and Florida Statutes with respect to the requests made by the Insured. State Farm Florida Insurance Company respectfully disagrees with all the assertions made and expressly denies all allegations contained in the CRN. We trust this response adequately addresses the allegations of violation alleged in the CRN. In addition, you will find a copy of the response submitted to the Florida Department of Financial Services on its website. Should you have any questions regarding this matter or need anything further, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, Scott J. Dornstein Scott J. Dornstein, Esq. On behalf of State Farm Insurance Company
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