Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     829389
Filing Accepted:  6/27/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
PALM BAY ESTATES CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.   First Name  
Street Address * 26773 HICKORY BOULEVARD UNITS 1-8
City, State Zip * BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134
Email Address * SM@HMGLEGAL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   PALM BAY ESTATES CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.   First Name   SCOTT
Policy # * FIC1-000206231 Claim #* 05000001427
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* MILLARD First Name * SCOTT Initial
Street Address* SUITE 300, 385 W, FAIRBANKS
City, State Zip* WINTER PARK , FLORIDA 32789
Email Address * SGM@HMGLEGAL.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   FRONTLINE INSURANCE UNLIMITED COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10074
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* AARON SCOTT, MICHAEL KRANZLER, DOUGLAS MAESTAS
Type of Insurance * Commercial Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
Claim Delay
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Unfair Trade Practice
Other : intentional delay tactics in litigation
Other : Failure to implement proper adjusting practices
Other : Failure to timely respond to claim correspondence
Other : using Michael Kranzler to make misleading statements regarding the policy and Florida law
* 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)(2) Making claims payments to insureds or beneficiaries not accompanied by a statement setting forth the coverage under which payments are being made.
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.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(j) Altering or amending an insurance adjuster’s report without: (I) Providing a detailed explanation as to why any change that has the effect of reducing the estimate of the loss was made; and (II) Including on the report or as an addendum to the report a detailed list of all changes made to the report and the identity of the person who ordered each change; or (III) Retaining all versions of the report, and including within each such version, for each change made within such version of the report, the identity of each person who made or ordered such change;
* 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 Additional Coverage: Debris Removal, Outdoor property Loss Conditions: Appraisal, Duties in the Event of Loss or Damage (a), (b) Loss Payment (a), (b), (c), (g) Valuation Florida Changes Form Loss Payment (1), (2), (3)
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

The named insured suffered a loss to the property due to hurricane force winds as a result of Hurricane Ian. Insured timely reported the loss, advised of damages to the structure, roofing system, roofing assembly, exterior porches, balconies, siding, A/C systems, and then provided full and unlimited access to the Insurer's adjusters, consultants, and engineers. After receiving the Insurer's determination of the amount of loss, Insured provided insurer with its assessment of the amount of loss for the same reported damages that the Insurer was noticed with the original claim. Insurer thereafter requested an additional inspection and demanded that the Insured submit a Sworn Proof of Loss. Insured timely provided access to the property and submitted the sworn proof of loss. Once the Insurer completed these requests, the carrier stopped responding to Insurer's claim correspondence, failed to identify any additional items it required to complete its investigation, and failed to comply with both the Policy and statutory requirement that the Insurer adjust and pay the supplemental claim within 90 days of the reported supplemental claim. Moreover, Insurer failed to respond to Insureds' lawyer's Letter of Representation and the request for information. This violates the carrier's duty to timely respond to claim correspondence and set the tone for what was to follow. Due the nonresponsive conduct of the carrier, the Insured demanded appraisal and requested that the carrier agree to engage in appraisal and appoint its appraiser. Insurer failed to acknowledge or respond to the demand and the communication. This established a pattern and practice of being nonresponsive and established breach of the insurance agreement. As a method of last resort, the Insureds served Insurer with a Notice of Intent to Litigate. Once received, the Insurer implemented a well recognized strategy to delay the outcome of the claim. Insurer retained counsel, demanded mediation - that must be completed within 90 days - and then made a demand for EUOs and conditioned its compliance with its obligations under Section 627.70152 on it taking EUOs before mediation. The issue, by responding to the Notice of Intent to Litigate by demanding mediation, Insurer could not simultaneously assert that it was still investigating the loss. First, the time to do so set by the Policy and Statute had elapsed. Second, Insurer failed to respond to the Notice by asserting it had not completed its investigation, and third an EUO is not a statutorily listed response to a Notice of Intent to Litigate. In other words, the statute does not afford an Insurer with the option of conditioning its compliance with law on the performance of a condition that is not listed in the statute. Secondarily, its attorney Michael Kranzler failed to either properly invoke the EUO provision because he requested an EUO for a claim number and address that neither involved the insured's claim, nor involved the insured address. Second, he failed to list areas of inquiry for the designated representative of the association. Third, by failing to do so and requesting multiple EUOs it was clear that he was seeking an EUO for a claim and insureds that were different and apart from the named insured. Moreover, by engaging in this tactic, Michael Kranzler and the Insurer conspired to create an impossibility, mislead its insureds, and violate the clear requirements of the Statute. On information and belief, Insurer and Chartwell have engaged in a conspiracy to employ this improper and dilatory litigation strategy, or those similar in effect to this, in broad scale to delay and improperly influence the proper outcomes of claims so that the Insurer can increase profits, delay claims, increase pressure on insureds to take lower payouts, and place profits above Insurer's contractual, legal, and statutory duty to adjust claims in good faith. To cure this CRN the insurer shall complete it investigation by properly invoking the provisions of the Policy and complete mediation within the statutory cure period, or alternatively agree to engage in the appraisal process that was invoked by the Insureds prior to serving the Notice of Intent to Litigate. Scott G. Millard is and has been the designated representative of the Insurer for all relevant times and his work email address stated herein is and always has been the email address for the association for all times relevant to the Insured's insurance claim and for purposes of communications relevant to this CRN.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
mkranzler@chartwelllaw.com 08-07-2025 August 7, 2025 Palm Bay Estates Condominium Association, Inc. VIA E-MAIL TO sm@hmglegal.com; sgm@hmglegal.com and Florida Department Of Financial Services Consumer Assistance/Civil Remedy Section Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0322 VIA E-FILING: Dept. of Financial Services Civil Remedy Notice Website RE: PALM BAY ESTATES CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. Date of Filing: June 27, 2025 Claim No.: 05000001427 CRN Filing No.: 829389 Policy No.: FIC1-000206231 Address: 26773 Hickory Blvd, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 To Whom It May Concern: This office has been retained by Frontline Insurance Unlimited Company (“Frontline”) in connection with the above referenced claim. Please accept the following as Frontline’s Response to the Civil Remedy Notice (“CRN” or “Notice”) filed on June 27, 2025 on behalf of Palm Bay Estates Condominium Association, Inc. Frontline denies each and every allegation brought forth in the CRN and denies any wrongdoing in the handling of this matter. Below we include a detailed factual history of the claim handling and actions by Frontline, which clearly reveals Frontline acted properly in responding to the claim and is in compliance with both its contractual and legal obligations. Frontline further states the Insured’s CRN is defective as it fails to comply with the strict governing requirements contained within Florida Statute Section 624.155. Namely, the statute requires that a CRN shall “state with specificity . . . [t]he facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.” Fla. Stat. § 624.155(3)(b)2. Under Florida law, a civil remedy notice must state the facts and circumstances that give rise to an alleged violation with such specificity sufficient to allow an insurer to cure any alleged violation within the sixty (60) day statutory period. See Lane v. Westfield Insurance Company, 862 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). For this reason, the CRN is deficient on its face and should be rejected. The Insured’s CRN is deficient as the limited facts and circumstances set forth therein are false, incomplete, and misleading, as well as insufficient to establish a violation of any statute or policy provision. Additionally, the CRN includes a list of eleven (11) statutory provisions alleged to have been violated. The referenced statutes, however, do not appear to be pertinent to the subject claim, and the CRN fails to specify each statute’s relative applicability to same. Further, the CRN does not contain specific facts addressing and supporting each alleged statutory violation against Frontline, but rather sets forth only stock, conclusory allegations of purported bad faith, and further makes certain statements of “fact” which are intentionally misleading at best. For these reasons alone, the CRN is defective on its face. In light of the incorrect, deficient, incomplete, misleading, and false allegations set forth in the CRN, Frontline hereby provides the Department of Financial Services with the following facts of the claim that, in and of themselves, disprove all of the allegations brought forth in the CRN. Frontline hereby asserts that all actions taken in the handling of this claim were done so in good faith for the purpose of fair and timely disposition of this matter. Indeed, given the actual facts of this matter, Frontline would encourage the Department to consider whether or not carriers should have an avenue for pleading bad faith against insureds and/or their attorneys. The facts of this matter would certainly support such a claim were it presented by Frontline here. CLAIM FACTS The insured property is a condominium building located at 26773 Hickory Blvd, Bonita Springs, FL 34134. Frontline issued a property insurance policy bearing policy number FIC1-000206231 to the Insured, Palm Bay Estates Condominium Association, Inc., with effective dates of October 1, 2021 through October 1, 2022. This claim was first reported to Frontline on October 7, 2022, as damages having occurred on or around September 28, 2022 as a result of Hurricane Ian. Frontline promptly commenced its investigation, and sent multiple correspondences to the Insured about additional documentation it needed as part of its investigation and adjustment of this claim. Frontline’s investigation noted extensive damage to the subject property, but the vast majority of same was found to be the result of flood/storm surge, non-covered perils under the Insured’s Policy with Frontline, as opposed to wind. However, the covered wind damages found fell below the Insured’s Policy deductible, so no payment was issued. However, even after that initial coverage determination, and upon notice from the Insured’s counsel that it intended to commence repairs, Frontline continued its investigation, including utilizing a licensed Professional Engineer to perform a reinspection. During this reconsideration of the Insured’s claim, the Insured submitted a Sworn Proof of Loss attesting to a loss amount of $928,913.68, based upon an estimate which plainly included damages were which were the result of flood, a non-covered loss. Accordingly, Frontline rejected the Sworn Proof of Loss and sent a correspondence listing documentation which it was requesting from the Insured to substantiate its claim. Certain documents were provided, but before Frontline ever received the most relevant documents, the documentation as to the Insured’s flood claim for this loss, counsel for the Insured sent a correspondence demanding appraisal and making accusations against Frontline. Frontline timely responded and advised that appraisal was not yet ripe as Frontline was still awaiting the requested flood claim documentation. Said documentation was finally provided to Frontline roughly two weeks after the Insured’s demand for appraisal, and while Frontline was in the process of reviewing same, the Insured, by and through its counsel, filed a Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation. Consistent with its statutory obligations, Frontline responded to the Notice by invoking mediation. Furthermore, consistent with its Policy, Frontline demanded the Examination Under Oath of a representative of the Insured. Rather than comply with either of these demands, the Plaintiff filed suit through its counsel, in violation of Florida law. The matter originally went to a hearing on a Motion to Dismiss in front of a Senior Judge covering for the handling judge, and during that hearing, counsel for the Insured, Scott Millard, repeatedly shouted down both Frontline’s counsel and the Senior Judge, in a plain violation of the county’s local rules of professionalism. By doing so, Mr. Millard temporarily succeeded in avoiding dismissal of the lawsuit despite it being plainly in violation of Florida law. However, when the presiding judge addressed the issue on a Motion for Reconsideration, she not only dismissed the lawsuit, but made it clear that Mr. Millard’s arguments were without merit. All told, the Insured’s counsel’s insistence on racing to file suit prematurely singlehandedly delayed the continued investigation and adjustment of this claim by nearly a year. The Insured, by and through its counsel, subsequently filed this CRN in retaliation, making numerous false or misleading claims. As demonstrated by the narrative above, Frontline engaged, and continues to engage, in a timely, thorough, and good faith evaluation of this claim. As shown, Frontline has at all times fully complied with all obligations imposed by the subject Policy and Florida law. As such, Frontline acted diligently in the handling of the underlying claim. Frontline thoroughly investigated the claim and informed the Insured of its investigation consistently and of its coverage determinations. Frontline asserts that it acted diligently and in good faith in the evaluation and handling of the underlying claim and complied at all times with the provisions of the Policy and applicable Florida Statutes. ALLEGED REASON FOR NOTICE: Claim Denial: Frontline denies any improper claim denial in this matter, particularly because this claim was not denied. The subject property suffered significant flood damage, but the Insured is trying to seek coverage for same under Frontline’s wind Policy. Frontline properly afforded coverage for all covered wind damages to the subject property, and further took steps to perform a continued investigation in an effort to find additional coverage for this loss, only for the Insured’s counsel to interfere by prematurely filing suit, presenting false arguments to the Court, and delaying the further adjustment of this claim by nearly a full year. Frontline acted, and continues to act, in accordance with its duties and obligations pursuant to the policy of insurance. Claim Delay: Frontline denies any delay in the claims handling and process of the loss as evident from the facts outlined above. Frontline promptly acknowledged the claim and timely initiated its investigation of the loss. Frontline routinely communicated with the Insured’s representatives, advising of its efforts to evaluate the claim, provided notice of all actions necessary to evaluate the loss and promptly notified the Insured of its coverage determination. Frontline has afforded coverage for this loss, and tried to investigate the Insured’s claim in order to substantiate the Insured’s request for additional coverage. However, it was stymied by the acts of the Insured’s counsel who singlehandedly delayed the further investigation of this matter by nearly a full year. Frontline acted, and continues to act, in accordance with its duties and obligations pursuant to the policy of insurance. Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer: Frontline denies any allegation of unsatisfactory settlement offer. The Insured is seeking coverage from Frontline for damages which were plainly the result of flood and/or storm surge, which are not subject to coverage under Frontline’s Policy. Frontline attempted to find additional coverage for the Insured only to be stymied by the acts of the Insured’s counsel who singlehandedly delayed the further investigation of this matter by nearly a full year. Frontline acted, and continues to act, in accordance with its duties and obligations pursuant to the policy of insurance. Unfair Trade Practice: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. The Insured submit no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. At no time did Frontline, its agents, or its employees employ any unfair business practice during the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. Intentional delay tactics in litigation: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. The Insured, by and through its counsel, knowingly filed this lawsuit prematurely and in violation of the relevant Florida Statute and, rather than accept same, yelled at an attorney and a senior judge to avoid the issue being addressed on the merits. The lawsuit was ultimately, properly, dismissed, laying bare that the Insured’s counsel’s actions were the sole instances of “delay tactics in litigation.” At no time did Frontline, its agents, employees, or counsel engage in any intentional delay tactics in the litigation of this claim. Failure to implement proper adjusting practices: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. The Insured submit no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. At no time did Frontline, its agents, or its employees employ any unfair business practice during the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. Failure to timely respond to claim correspondence: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. The Insured submit no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. At no time did Frontline, its agents, or its employees employ any unfair business practice during the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. Frontline timely responded to all correspondences, the Insured’s counsel is simply upset not to get the specific answers and actions he wanted, irrespective of the Policy or law. Using Michael Kranzler to make misleading statements regarding the policy and Florida law: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. The Insured submit no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. At no time did Frontline, its agents, or its employees employ any unfair business practice during the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. Conversely, this utterly false statement directed to Frontline’s counsel is arguably defamatory, particularly where counsel for the Insured plainly violated local standards of professionalism and was told by a Circuit Court judge that his argument, in opposition to the arguments the Insured claims to be “misleading,” were without merit. ALLEGED STATUTORY VIOLATIONS The Insured alleges eleven (11) statutory violations in the CRN, however, no specific facts or circumstances are provided to support these allegations. The CRN is simply a recitation of general, stock allegations of bad faith conduct, along with a list of statutory violations that are not specifically alleged or described. Notwithstanding, Frontline denies each and every allegation of statutory violation individually as follows: 624.155(1)(b)(1): Denied. Frontline has not failed to attempt to settle this claim in good faith and has always acted fairly and honestly towards the Insured. As shown in the above factual summary, the conduct of Frontline following its receipt of the first notice of the loss has complied with all aspects of Florida law. Frontline timely inspected the loss and informed the Insured of its coverage determination, and continued to pursue information and documentation to justify further coverage to the Insured, only for the Insured’s counsel to act in ways which had the effect of preventing such efforts and delaying Frontline’s investigation. The Insured has submitted no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. Frontline asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligation set forth in the subject insurance policy. 626.9541(1)(b)(2): Denied. Frontline has afforded extensive coverage for this loss and continues to seek out relevant information from the Insured and its representatives to justify further coverage. Frontline asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligation set forth in the subject insurance policy. 626.9541(1)(b)(3): Denied. Frontline provided an estimate outlining the basis for its initial coverage to the Insured. Frontline asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligation set forth in the subject insurance policy. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Denied. This allegation is without basis. The Insured submits no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. Frontline has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of claims at all times. The aforementioned facts demonstrate that Frontline employed proper and customary claims practices in the investigation and adjustment of this claim, and in strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b): Denied. This allegation is without basis. The Insured submits no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. Frontline has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of claims at all times. The aforementioned facts demonstrate that Frontline employed proper and customary claims practices in the investigation and adjustment of this claim, and in strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c): Denied. As shown in the detailed factual summary above, Frontline was prompt and forthcoming with the Insured at all times material hereto, properly advising the Insured of the facts, observations, and Policy language at issue. Frontline asserts its full and strict compliance with the contractual and statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligation set forth in the subject insurance Policy. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d): Denied. This allegation is without basis. The Insured submits no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. Frontline has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of claims at all times. The aforementioned facts demonstrate that Frontline employed proper and customary claims practices in the investigation and adjustment of this claim, and in strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f): Denied. This allegation is without basis. The Insured submits no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. Frontline has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of claims at all times. The aforementioned facts demonstrate that Frontline employed proper and customary claims practices in the investigation and adjustment of this claim, and in strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g): Denied. This allegation is without basis. The Insured submits no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. Frontline has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of claims at all times. The aforementioned facts demonstrate that Frontline employed proper and customary claims practices in the investigation and adjustment of this claim, and in strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h): Denied. This allegation is without basis. The Insured submits no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. Frontline has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of claims at all times. The aforementioned facts demonstrate that Frontline employed proper and customary claims practices in the investigation and adjustment of this claim, and in strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(j): Denied. This allegation is without basis. The Insured submits no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. Frontline has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of claims at all times. The aforementioned facts demonstrate that Frontline employed proper and customary claims practices in the investigation and adjustment of this claim, and in strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE INSURANCE POLICY The Insured’s CRN references multiple broad Policy provisions which it alleges to have been violated, without any explanation as to their applicability to this dispute. This failure to provide specific reference to policy language and its applicability to the dispute is a direct and clear noncompliance with the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 624.155, rendering the CRN deficient on its face as to form and substance. Notwithstanding, Frontline denies violating any provision or duties set forth in the Policy and further asserts compliance with the Policy and all of its provisions and endorsements. FPIC handled the Insured’s claim with diligence and at all times acted fairly in the administration of this claim and treated the Insured with honesty and with due regard for their interests. All actions by Frontline were done in complete and strict compliance with the Policy. FRONTLINE DENIES ALL ALLEGATIONS IN THE CRN Frontline hereby denies any and all allegations of bad faith by the Insured, and states that it has, at all times material, handled and adjusted the Insured’s claim with utmost good faith. Any and all allegations of bad faith contained within the CRN are expressly rejected by Frontline. As stated above, the CRN is deficient as the CRN itself contains a recitation of general, stock allegations of bad faith conduct, inclusive of knowingly false allegations, along with eleven (11) statutory provisions that are not specifically alleged or described. The CRN is therefore non-compliant with Florida Statute Section 624.155(3), which requires that a civil remedy notice of insurer violation “state with specificity”, inter alia, the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation and the “specific” language of the subject insurance policy that is relevant to any alleged violation(s). The Insured wholly fail to provide any specific facts or circumstances giving rise to the alleged violations in the CRN, and instead simply allege a litany of non-specific, boilerplate allegations against Frontline as purported acts of bad faith. Accordingly, the CRN does not provide the contemplated and mandated notice of alleged bad faith that is required as a condition precedent to any civil claim for bad faith pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 624.155. For these reasons, the CRN is denied and rejected. Additionally, as described in detail above, the facts alleged in the CRN are contrary to the actual facts underlying the subject claim. Frontline further denies any and all other allegations not specifically addressed in this response related to the above-referenced Civil Remedy Notice. There has been no violation of the referenced statutory provisions by Frontline. By responding to the Civil Remedy Notice filed by the Insured, Frontline neither waives nor abandons but expressly reserves any and all rights, claims and defenses it has or may have under the terms and conditions of the Policy and applicable Florida law. Herein, Frontline has attempted to fully and adequately respond to the allegations alleged in the CRN. Should the Florida Department of Financial Services have any questions or further inquiry with respect to this matter, please contact the undersigned. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, CHARTWELL LAW, LLP. ______________________________ Michael J. Kranzler, Esq. 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