Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     810119
Filing Accepted:  3/7/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
CLAUDIA BOLIVAR   First Name   ARMANDO ARIAS
Street Address * 13843 WATERTHRUSH PL.
City, State Zip * LAKEWOOD RANCH, FL 34202
Email Address * CLUDAMA83@GMAIL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   CLAUDIA BOLIVAR   First Name   ARMANDO ARIAS
Policy # * 1501-2201-5597 Claim #* FL24-0113343-A322
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* SULISUFAY First Name * LAURA Initial T.
Street Address* 3411 W. FLETCHER AVE., STE. B
City, State Zip* TAMPA , FL 33618
Email Address * PRESUIT@SULIMARTINEZLAW.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10861
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* THOMAS HORN AND ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL FROM, OR AGENT OF, UNIVERSAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, WHO WAS INVOLVED IN THE CLAIM.
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Unfair Trade Practice
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Other : Not treating the Insured with good faith claims conduct
Other : Looking for ways to deny full recovery to the Insured
Other : Failing to properly investigate the Insured’s loss
Other : Failing to provide the Insured with the full benefits awarded under the contract of insurance in a t
Other : Not training, supervising, or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made
Other : Not adjusting claims and evaluating loss properly
Other : Shifting the burden of insuring the loss to the Insured
Other : Failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims
* Statutory provision(s) which the insurer allegedly violated.
 
624.155(1)(b)(1) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests.
626.9541(1)(i)(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)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

THE POLICY LANGUAGE RELEVANT TO THE VIOLATIONS INCLUDES ALL APPLICABLE LOSS PAYMENT AND COVERAGE PROVISIONS OF POLICY NUMBER 1501-2201-5597, INCLUDING THE DECLARATIONS PAGE AND ALL ENDORSEMENTS TO THE POLICY, WITH RESPECT TO COVERAGES A, B, C, AND D. ADDITIONALLY, ANY SECTIONS RELIED UPON BY THE INSURER IN ITS FAILURE TO FULLY PAY THE CLAIM, INCLUDING THE DUTIES IN THE EVENT OF LOSS PROVISIONS AND THE POLICY'S EXCLUSION OF COVERAGE PROVISIONS. THE VIOLATIONS ALLEGED ARE ALSO STATUTORILY BASED AND DO NOT RELY ON ANY SPECIFIC POLICY LANGUAGE. 627.4137(1)(e) – Each insurer which does or may provide liability insurance coverage to pay all or a portion of any claim which might be made shall provide, within 30 days of the written request of the claimant, a statement, under oath, of a corporate officer or the insurer's claims manager or superintendent setting forth the following information with regard to each known policy of insurance, including excess or umbrella insurance: A copy of the policy. 627.444(2)(a) Notwithstanding any other law, an insurer shall provide to an insured within 15 calendar days after an individual or entity designated by the insurer receives the insured's written request, either: A loss run statement;
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company has committed the following in handling the insured’s claim: 1. Failing to act in due diligence and good faith to resolve claims 2. Placing the financial interest of the Carrier before that of the Insured 3. Looking for ways to deny benefit payments and otherwise “low ball” or “stone wall” claims. 4. Not adjusting the claims promptly and fairly 5. Not attempting in good faith to settle claims 6. Conducting Inadequate investigations 7. Failing to employ policies and procedures to conduct adequate investigations 8. Failing to provide an estimate that complies with the Florida Building Codes. 9. Shifting the burden of investigating the loss onto the Insured. 10. Misrepresenting the terms of the insurance policy. 11. Failing to provide a copy of the insurance policy within 30 days. 12. Failing to provide a loss run statement within 15 days. Claudia Bolivar and Armando Arias are homeowners with an all-risks insurance policy issued by Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company (hereinafter “Carrier”),. On or about September 28, 2022, while the policy was in full force and effect, the Insured’s property located at 13843 Waterthrush Pl. Lakewood Ranch, FL 34202 sustained significant damage as a result of Hurricane Ian. The insured promptly reported the claim and fully cooperated with the carrier’s investigation. The Carrier assigned claim number FL24-0113343-A322 to the loss. After reporting the claim, Carrier retained an unqualified and biased field adjuster to adjust the loss. This adjuster had a financial incentive to adjust the loss in a manner that would minimize Carrier’s losses. Instead of adjusting the claim fairly, honestly, in good faith, and with due regard for the Insured’s interest, the adjuster made a conscious effort to ignore evidence of covered losses to the property. Then in a letter dated June 28, 2024, the carrier notified the Insured that it had completed its investigation into the loss and the damages were caused by “wear, tear and deterioration” which were not covered by the policy. The interior water damage was covered however, the adjuster estimated repairs to be $1,790.12, falling below the deductible of $6,920.00. Given the vastly underestimated cost of repairs, the Insured’s disagreement with the coverage decision, and the scope and nature of the damage resulting from the loss, the Insured through its retained representatives disputed the coverage determination and submitted an estimate prepared by Hunter Claims for $83,674.67 which was a fair and reasonable assessment of the loss. Worst still, Carrier failed to retain qualified experts necessary to identify the repairs necessary to restore the property to its pre-loss condition within reasonable time. Under the circumstances surrounding this claim, had Carrier acted fairly and honestly toward the Insured and with due regard for the Insured’s interests, Carrier could and should have attempted in good faith to settle this claim. Carrier did not and, instead, dishonestly and unfairly placed its own interests well ahead of those of the Insured. In doing so, Carrier violated Section 624.155(1)(b)(1), Florida Statutes. Carrier’s use of unqualified and bias adjusters, and failure to retain experts necessary to identify the repairs necessary to restore the property to its pre-loss condition evidences Carrier’s failure to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims in violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), Florida Statutes. Carrier’s use of unqualified and bias adjusters, and failure to retain experts necessary to identify the repairs necessary to restore the property to its pre-loss condition, evidences Carrier’s failure to conduct a reasonable investigation based upon available information. When applying the facts present here to Florida law, it is clear that Carrier is acting in bad faith. Florida Statute § 624.02 defines insurance as a contract whereby one undertakes to indemnify another or pay or allow a specified amount or a determinable benefit based on determinable contingencies. Inherent is the fact that payment must be made timely and promptly so that insureds may mitigate their damages and be put back into the position they were in prior to the loss as quickly as possible. Carrier has breached this duty by refusing to properly and timely adjust the loss. Moreover, Section 69B-220.201 of the Florida Administrative Code defines Carrier’s adjusters conduct here as an unfair claims settlement practice. Specifically, Section 69B-220.201(3) provides that “[a]n adjuster shall not approach investigations, adjustments, and settlements in a manner prejudicial to the insured” and that “[a]n adjuster shall make truthful and unbiased reports of the facts after making a complete investigation.” As detailed above, Carrier’s investigation and adjustment of this claim was done in a manner prejudicial to Insured, was incomplete, and lacked truthful and unbiased reports of the facts. Upon receiving notice of the loss, the Insurer had the duty to provide the full benefits under the policy. This includes providing the Insured with a proper investigation and the funds necessary to return the home to its pre-loss condition. However, when the Insurer conducted its inspection of the insured property, the Insurer’s representatives failed to conduct a thorough and adequate investigation, or the representatives intentionally ignored the damage observed and failed to make truthful and unbiased reports of the facts after investigating. As a result, the Insurer breached the policy by failing to fully indemnify the Insured for the covered loss. The Insured, retained counsel and shortly thereafter requested the policy with no response. The policy was not received within 30 days of the first written request of the Insured and, indeed, has not yet been provided. Each Insurer which does or may provide liability insurance coverage to pay all or a portion of any claim which might be made shall provide, within 30 days of the written request of the Insured, a statement, under oath, of a corporate officer or the insurer’s claims manager or superintendent, a copy of the policy. Fla. Stat. § 627.4137(1)(e). The Insurer knows or should know that when independent perils converge and no single cause can be considered the sole or proximate cause, it is appropriate to apply the concurring cause doctrine. Sebo v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 208 So. 3d 694, 697 (Fla. 2016). The concurring cause doctrine states that coverage may exist where an insured risk constitutes a concurrent cause of the loss even when it is not the prime or efficient cause. Id. at 698. A covered peril that meets with an uncovered peril may still provide for coverage under a policy when the covered peril triggered the events that eventually led to the loss. Id. at 697. The Insurer intentionally ignored covered damage to deny the reported loss and wrongfully fail to pay the Insured. This is an underhanded attempt to place the financial interests of the Insurer over those of the Insured and to delay and frustrate the Insured’s ability to have his claim adjusted promptly to begin restoring his property. Additionally, Insurer shifted the burden and cost of investigating and insuring the loss onto the Insured. During their investigation, the insurer’s adjuster did not use a moisture meter, despite the presence of interior water damage. A moisture meter can be purchased online from Amazon for around $40 before tax. The Insurer could purchase a moisture meter and assess thousands of properties with one meter. Instead, the Insurer would rather place its financial interests over those of the Insured by failing to provide the adjuster with the necessary tools to correctly inspect the loss. As a result of the inadequate investigation and surrounding circumstances it is apparent that the Insurer significantly underestimated the scope of the loss to the Insured’s property. The Insurer and its adjuster have colluded to misrepresent the true scope of damages to the insured property and the true replacement costs of the damages. The conduct outlined above is done within the Insurer’s routine course of the business. There may be further wrongful conduct which has not been made known to the Insured at this moment. Certain conduct or actions may be discovered throughout discovery or cannot be verified without a review of the Insurer’s claim file and standards and procedures for the adjustment and investigation of claims. In short, the Insurer is not acting with due regard for the Insured’s interests or safety. In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. The Insurer has breached this trust and its duty to the Insured. The Insurer and its agents conducted cursory and inadequate investigations and wrongfully denied full coverage for the claim. Moreover, the Insurer has engaged in bad faith practices designed to delay claims and prevent the Insured from recovering what is rightfully owed under the subject policy of insurance. The Insurer’s actions and inactions have continued to frustrate and delay the resolution of the Insured claim. The Insurer’s actions amount to but are not limited to the following: 1. Claim Delay: The Carrier has delayed processing the claim, causing frustration and inconvenience to the Insured. 2. Lack of Good Faith Conduct: The Carrier has not treated the Insured with good faith conduct expected when handling claims. 3. Attempt to Reduce Recovery: The Carrier has actively sought ways to minimize the amount owed to the Insured under the policy. 4. Attempt to Deny Recovery: The Carrier has looked for reasons to deny coverage altogether, rather than fulfill its obligations under the policy. 5. Failure to Property Evaluate Loss: Claims have not been assessed accurately or promptly, resulting in delays and incomplete indemnity for the Insured. 6. Inadequate Training and Supervision of Adjusters: The Carrier has not ensured its adjusters are adequately trained to handle claims promptly and fairly. 7. Placing Company Interests over Insured Interests: The Carrier has prioritized its financial interests over the health and safety of the Insured. 8. Failure to Provide Complaint Estimates: Estimates provided by the Carrier do not comply with Florida Building Codes. 9. Shifting Investigation Burden to Insured: The Carrier has unfairly placed the burden of investigating the claim onto the Insured. 10. Conducting Inadequate Investigations: The Carrier’s Investigation into the claim have been insufficient or cursory. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this civil remedy notice, the Insurer must: 1. Admit full coverage for the Insured’s loss and tender all additional amounts owed under the Policy for the covered loss to the insured property Please email any responses to this civil remedy notice to presuit@sulimartinezlaw.com A copy of this form submitted to the FDFS has been sent via email to the following parties, providing them notice of the filing of the civil remedy notice: • Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company via DFS Filing • Claims Department, Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company, via portal • Claudia Bolivar and Armando Arias via email cludama83@gmail.com
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
oc1102@universalproperty.com 04-25-2025 April 25, 2025 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING Florida Department of Financial Services Bureau of Consumer Assistance Civil Remedy Section 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0322 Re: DFS File No.: 810119 Filing Date: 3/7/2025 Complainant(s): Armando Arias Claudia Bolivar Insured(s): Armando Arias Claudia Bolivar Policy No.: 1501-2201-5597 Claim No.: FL24-0113343-A322 Dear Sir/Madam: Please allow this to serve as Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company’s (“Universal”) formal response to the above-referenced Civil Remedy Notice (“Notice”) filed by attorney, Laura T. Sulisufay on behalf of Complainants Armando Arias Claudia Bolivar. The Notice alleges violations of Sections 624.155, 624.02, 627.444, 627.4137, and 626.9541, Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code 69B-220.201. Universal denies that it violated these or any statutes, Florida law, administrative code, or policy provisions regarding the claim adjustment of this matter. With that said, Universal asserts that the Notice fails to comply with the specific notice and information requirements as set forth in Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation document provisions, Section 624.155, Florida Statutes and Florida law. The Notice is deficient as a matter of law as it fails to comply with Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. See 316, Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Ins. Co., 625 F. Supp. 2d 1187 (N.D. Fla. 2008); Rousso v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., 2010 WL 7367059, (S. D. Fla. 2010); Heritage Corp. of South Fla. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, P.A., 580 F. Supp. 2d 1294 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co., 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). Pursuant to Section 624.155(3)(b), Florida Statutes the Notice “shall state with specificity” the following information: 1. The statutory provision, including the specific language, 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...; 5. a statement that the Notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section. Moreover, the Department of Financial Services (“DFS”), created form DFS-10-363, which lays out 15 requirements that the Complainant must respond to with specificity. The Florida Supreme Court holds 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). Such an interpretation would mean that statutory bad faith cases cannot proceed unless the Complainant has specifically complied with all statutory requirements. Pin-Pon Corp. v. Landmark American Ins. Co., 500 F. Supp. 3d 1336 (S.D. Fla. 2020); Julien v. United Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 311 So.3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). To begin, the Notice fails to meet the requirement of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, on several grounds. First, the Notice fails to satisfy the requirement to identify the person or persons representing the insurer most responsible for or knowledgeable of the facts giving rise to the allegations. In order to comply with the requirements of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, the Complainants must name the individual(s) involved with specificity as it relates to the purported violation(s) to allow Universal to properly investigate the allegations. The Notice lacks the requisite specificity as required by Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. Here, the Notice states “THOMAS HORN,” however, the Notice fails to include any specificity as to how Mr. Horn is knowledgeable of the facts giving rise to any purported allegation(s) and/or what, if anything, he did or failed to do as it relates to the claim at issue. The Complainants also attempt a “catch-all” by stating “ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL FROM, OR AGENT OF, UNIVERSAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, WHO WAS INVOLVED IN THE CLAIM” which significantly prejudices Universal, as Universal has not been properly notified by Complainants of the individuals that purportedly committed statutory violations or the specific statutory violations any individual purportedly committed. Further, the statement clearly defeats the requirement in the DFS form to provide specificity in order to put the carrier on notice and provide an opportunity to investigate any allegation with a specific individual. Specific identification of a person or persons with the most knowledge within Universal is of particular importance because, the Complainants allege that Universal is “misrepresenting the terms of the insurance policy” in the Notice. The Notice, however, fails to include the requisite specificity as to whom made any misrepresentations or when any of these misrepresentations occurred. Accordingly, the Notice is insufficient as a matter of law. Second, the Notice fails to satisfy Section 624.155(3)(b)(4), Florida Statutes, in that it fails to reference any specific policy language relevant to any alleged violation. Instead, the Notice improperly cites Sections 627.4137 and 627.444, Florida Statutes. However, these sections are not contained within the Policy. Moreover, the Notice states, “THE POLICY LANGUAGE RELEVANT TO THE VIOLATIONS INCLUDES ALL APPLICABLE LOSS PAYMENT AND COVERAGE PROVISIONS OF POLICY NUMBER 1501-2201-5597, INCLUDING THE DECLARATIONS PAGE AND ALL ENDORSEMENTS TO THE POLICY, WITH RESPECT TO COVERAGES A, B, C, AND D. ADDITIONALLY, ANY SECTIONS RELIED UPON BY THE INSURER IN ITS FAILURE TO FULLY PAY THE CLAIM, INCLUDING THE DUTIES IN THE EVENT OF LOSS PROVISIONS AND THE POLICY'S EXCLUSION OF COVERAGE PROVISIONS.” The Notice fails to identify how the referenced provisions relate to any alleged violation. The broad references to provisions in the Policy provide no guidance or explanation, such that Universal is left to wonder what policy provisions Complainants believe were allegedly violated or breached and why. General, vague, and overbroad references to the entire subject policy does not satisfy the specificity required by Section 624.155(3)(b)(4), Florida Statutes. Further, by stating, “the violations alleged are also statutorily based and do not rely on any specific policy language.” The Complainants admit that Universal in fact did not violate any specific policy language but fails to provide any specificity as to how any statutes were violated. As such, the Notice is deficient as a matter of law. See generally Julien v. United Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 311 So.3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). Lastly, with respect to the requirement to set forth with specificity the “facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation,” the Notice fails to allege any specific conduct on the part of Universal that would violate any policy provision or statute. The Notice asserts general allegations containing boilerplate language rather than providing specific facts to support any alleged statutory violation. As an example, the Notice states: “Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company has committed the following in handling the insured’s claim: 1. Failing to act in due diligence and good faith to resolve claims 2. Placing the financial interest of the Carrier before that of the Insured 3. Looking for ways to deny benefit payments and otherwise “low ball” or “stone wall” claims. 4. Not adjusting the claims promptly and fairly 5. Not attempting in good faith to settle claims 6. Conducting Inadequate investigations 7. Failing to employ policies and procedures to conduct adequate investigations 8. Failing to provide an estimate that complies with the Florida Building Codes. 9. Shifting the burden of investigating the loss onto the Insured. 10. Misrepresenting the terms of the insurance policy. 11. Failing to provide a copy of the insurance policy within 30 days. 12. Failing to provide a loss run statement within 15 days. … The Insurer’s actions amount to but are not limited to the following: 1. Claim Delay: The Carrier has delayed processing the claim, causing frustration and inconvenience to the Insured. 2. Lack of Good Faith Conduct: The Carrier has not treated the Insured with good faith conduct expected when handling claims. 3. Attempt to Reduce Recovery: The Carrier has actively sought ways to minimize the amount owed to the Insured under the policy. 4. Attempt to Deny Recovery: The Carrier has looked for reasons to deny coverage altogether, rather than fulfill its obligations under the policy. 5. Failure to Property Evaluate Loss: Claims have not been assessed accurately or promptly, resulting in delays and incomplete indemnity for the Insured. 6. Inadequate Training and Supervision of Adjusters: The Carrier has not ensured its adjusters are adequately trained to handle claims promptly and fairly. 7. Placing Company Interests over Insured Interests: The Carrier has prioritized its financial interests over the health and safety of the Insured. 8. Failure to Provide Complaint Estimates: Estimates provided by the Carrier do not comply with Florida Building Codes. 9. Shifting Investigation Burden to Insured: The Carrier has unfairly placed the burden of investigating the claim onto the Insured. 10. Conducting Inadequate Investigations: The Carrier’s Investigation into the claim have been insufficient or cursory.” The Notice wholly fails to identify any specific facts or circumstances which support any of the above-listed conclusory and/or boilerplate allegations. Further, at no time has Universal placed the burden to investigate the claim on the Insureds. Furthermore, the Notice alleges, “[t]he Insurer and its adjuster have colluded to misrepresent the true scope of damages to the insured property and the true replacement costs of the damages.” However, the Notice does not set forth any facts regarding any misrepresentations made by Universal and does not identify the person or persons who made such misrepresentations, nor does it identify to whom any misrepresentations were made. Furthermore, the Complainants allege that Universal has breached Section 624.02, Florida statutes by “refusing to properly and timely adjust the loss.” However, there are no facts specified in the Notice to support how this statute was breached. Additionally, the mentioning of the Adjuster’s Code of Ethics has no factual support to provide the Insurer notice as to how and/or if there has been a violation. It is evident that the statement of facts falls short of the specificity required by Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. As a result, the Complainants fail to comply with the requirements provided in Section 624.155(3)(b)(2), Florida Statutes. In summary, as outlined above, the Complainants fail to respond to each of the fields set forth on the DFS Form with the requisite specificity including, but not limited to, the failure to satisfy the requirement to identify the person or persons representing the insurer most responsible for or knowledgeable of the facts giving rise to the allegations, the failure to reference specific policy language relevant to the alleged violation, and the failure to sufficiently allege facts and circumstances giving rise to any violation. Therefore, the Notice is legally deficient and fails to satisfy the condition precedent to filing a bad faith action. Pin-Pon Corp. v. Landmark American Ins. Co., 500 F. Supp. 3d 1336 (S.D. Fla. 2020); Julien v. United Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 311 So.3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). For the aforementioned reasons, the Notice is deficient as a matter of law. Nonetheless, and without waiving the above-referenced deficiencies, the following shall provide you with the facts and circumstances regarding this claim, which shall demonstrate that Universal has not violated any Policy terms or statutory provisions. On June 11, 2024, Universal received untimely notice from the Insureds’ public adjuster, Hunter Claims LLC, the insured location had damage which occurred on September 28, 2022. Universal inspected the property and documented any visible damage. Thereafter, Universal advised the Insureds it accepted coverage for certain portion of the claim, however the estimated cost for repairs fell below the applicable policy deductible and coverage for the roof is denied, pursuant to the terms of the Policy. Universal denies the allegations asserted in the Notice. An insurer is not required to pay whatever amount an insured demands. As outlined above, the alleged statutory violations set forth in the Notice are devoid of factual support and are without merit. We trust that the foregoing is sufficient to advise you of Universal’s position with regard to this matter and fully respond to the Notice file by the Complainants. Sincerely, /s/ Ozzy Cudila Ozzy Cudila, Esq. Associate General Counsel
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