21-000136
Michael Warren vs.
Luxury Vacations In Paradise, Inc., And American Contractors Indemnity Company, As Surety
Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Friday, April 9, 2021.
Recommended Order on Friday, April 9, 2021.
1S TATE OF F LORIDA
6D IVISION OF A DMINISTRATIVE H EARINGS
13M ICHAEL W ARREN ,
17Petitioner ,
18vs. Case No. 21 - 0136
24L UXURY V ACATIONS I N P ARADISE , I NC .,
35A ND A MERICAN C ONTRACTORS I NDEMNITY
43C OMPANY , A S S URETY ,
49Respondents .
51/
52R ECOMMENDED O RDER
56Pursuant to notice, a final hearing was conducted in this case on
68March 12, 2021, via Zoom teleconference, before Lawrence P. Stevenson, a
79duly - designated Administrative Law Judge (ÑALJÒ) of the D ivision of
91Administrative Hearings (ÑDOAHÒ).
94A PPEARANCES
96For Petitioner: Michael Cole Warren, pro se
1032869 Highland View Circle
107Clermont, Florida 34711
110For Respondent Luxury Vacations in Paradise, Inc. :
118Blake Adams, Corporate Representativ e
123Luxury Vacations in Paradise, Inc.
1285379 Lyons Road, #219
132Coconut Creek, Florida 33073
136For Respondent American Contractors Indemnity, Co.:
142Garen H. Kasparian, Esquire
146American Contractors Indemnity Company
150801 South Figueroa Street
154Los Angeles, California 90017
158S TATEMENT OF T HE I SSUE
165The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to his claim against
176RespondentÔs security deposit posted with the Department of Agriculture and
186Consumer Services.
188P RELIMINARY S TATEM ENT
193On July 30, 2019, Petitioner , Michael Warren , and his wife, Barbara
204Warren, attended a sales presentation and entered into a contract with
215Respondent, Luxury Vacations in Paradise, Inc. (ÑLuxury VacationsÒ), a seller
225of travel. The Warrens soon regrett ed their purchase and began attempting
237to cancel it and obtain the return of their money. Having failed in their
251attempts to cancel with the seller, the Warrens , on or about September 25,
2642019, filed a claim against the performance bond that Luxury Vacatio ns, as a
278seller of travel, was required to file with the Department of Agriculture and
291Consumer Services (the ÑDepartment Ò ) pursuant to section 559.929, Florida
302Statutes.
303Luxury Vacations contested the bond claim and requested a formal
313hearing pursuant t o sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, via an
325Election of Rights form filed with the Department. The form is undated but
338no party raised any issue as to the timing of its filing. On January 13, 2021,
354the Department forwarded the matter to DOAH for the assignment of an ALJ
367and the conduct of a formal hearing. The case was scheduled for hearing on
381March 12, 2021, on which date it was convened and completed.
392At the hearing, Mr. Warren testified on his own behalf and presented the
405testimony of hi s wife, Barbara Warren. PetitionerÔs Composite Exhibit A was
417admitted without objection. Luxury Vacations presented the testimony of its
427corporate representative, Blake Adams. RespondentÔs Composite Exhibit A
435was admitted without objection. Respondent , Ame rican Contractors
443Indemnity Company , offered no witnesses or exhibits; however, its corporate
453representative, Garen Kapsarian, offered legal argument.
459Section 559.929(3) provides that the Department Ñshall act only as a
470nominal partyÒ in these proceedings . Thus, the Department did not actively
482participate in the final hearing.
487No Transcript of the final hearing was ordered. Respondent , American
497Contractors Indemnity Company , timely filed its Proposed Recommended
505Order on March 22, 2021. Petitioner filed a brief response to that Proposed
518Recommended Order on March 22, 2021. Respondent , Luxury Vacations , did
528not make any post - hearing filings.
535F INDINGS OF F ACT
540Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the
554following Findings of Fact are made:
5601. On July 30, 2019, Michael and Barbara Warren, a retired couple living
573in Clermont, attended a ÑVacation SeminarÒ sponsored by Vacations Plus
583Travel, a North Carolina based company that operates as an alter ego of
596Luxury Vacations, which is ba sed in Florida. The seminar was staged in a
610conference room of the Hampton Inn in Clermont.
6182. The Warrens were lured by the promise of a free cruise if they listened
633to a sales presentation by representatives of Vacations Plus Travel.
6433. Mr. Warren testif ied that they were subjected to intense sales pressure
656to buy a software license that they were told would give them access to Ñtrue
671wholesale pricesÒ on all their travel needs, from transportation to lodging, for
683the rest of their lives. The price of the license was in excess of $7,000 , but the
701salesman promised it would more than pay for itself in savings. Mr. Warren
714placed the full purchase amount of $7,593.00 on a credit card.
7264. The ÑReservation Services License AgreementÒ signed by the Warrens
736stated in bold type:
740Assuming the Licensee(s) has not accessed any
747benefits and has returned all materials delivered to
755them at closing, the Licensee(s) has the right to
764rescind this transaction within a period of three (3)
773days by sending notice of cancellation via certified
781mail, return receipt requested.
7855. Almost immediately after leaving the seminar, the Warrens regretted
795their purchase. They began calling the toll free phone number listed in their
808purchase documents to cancel the contract. No one ever answe red the phone.
821Ms. Warren testified that she managed to leave a voice message stating that
834they wished to cancel the contract but the call was never returned. The
847Warrens did not send a notice of cancellation via certified mail.
8586. Mr. Warren testified tha t on August 19, 2019, he received an email
872from Luxury Vacations with instructions on using its website, including a
883password. Mr. Warren testified that he signed onto the website but that it
896was not functional. There was a home page , but clicking on any o f the
911proffered links returned only a blank page.
9187. Mr. Warren stated that he and his wife were away from home for a time
934after August 19, 2019, and took no further action either to cancel the contract
948or use the website.
9528. When they came home, the Warr ens again signed onto the Luxury
965Vacations website and this time found it to be functional. Mr. Warren
977testified that the website was not at all what was promised at the seminar in
992Clermont. The website was essentially a presentation of advertisements for
1002vacation rentals, minus any information on price comparisons that would
1012enable the Warrens to determine the savings they might realize by booking
1024through the Luxury Vacations site. The properties themselves were also not
1035to the WarrensÔ s liking.
10409. Mr. Wa rren testified that he and his wife decided they would never
1054recoup the cost of the license and again attempted to cancel by phoning the
1068number provided with their contract materials. Again, they were unable to
1079speak to anyone or get any kind of response f rom Luxury Vacations.
109210. The Warrens sent a letter to Luxury Vacations, via certified mail, on
1105August 27, 2019, informing the company of their inability to use the website
1118and requesting cancellation of the contract. They heard nothing from the
1129company.
113011. Having failed to cancel the contract by direct means, the Warrens
1142contacted their credit card company to dispute the transaction.
115112. Blake Adams, the CEO of Luxury Vacations, testified that the
1162company was ÑblindsidedÒ by the WarrensÔ s dispute of the credit card charges
1175because up to that point the company had heard nothing from the Warrens.
1188As adamantly as Mr. Warren testified that he and his wife made repeated
1201efforts to contact the company, Mr. Adams just as adamantly testified that
1213the company had no record of any calls from the Warrens and no
1226correspondence of any kind prior to receiving the notice of dispute from the
1239credit card provider.
124213. Luxury Vacations provided sufficient information to the credit card
1252provider to uphold the purchase and re ceive the funds for the WarrensÔ s
1266license purchase.
126814. The WarrensÔ s cancellation letter had been misdelivered and did not
1280reach Luxury Vacations until September 16, 2019. A December 31, 2020,
1291letter to the Warrens from Stephanie Sorrentino, an employee o f Luxury
1303Vacations, states that upon receiving the cancellation letter, the company
1313contacted the Warrens to explain that their account was active and to inform
1326them of how to use the services they had purchased.
133615. The Warrens denied ever being contacted by Ms. Sorrentino or anyone
1348else from Luxury Vacations. Mr. Warren timely filed the claim for $7,593.00
1361against the performance bond with the Department on or about
1371September 25, 2019.
137416. Mr. Adams testified that Mr. WarrenÔs testimony about seeing only
1385advertisements on the Luxury Vacations Ô website showed that Mr. Warren
1396was never actually logged into the website. Mr. Adams stated that the splash
1409page of the website includes advertising, but that once the user logs into the
1423licensed portion of the site there are no advertisements.
143217. Mr. Warren testified that he is a retired engineer and circuit designer
1445and is perfectly capable of signing on to a website.
145518. The parties also disputed the events of July 31, 2019, the day after the
1470Warrens signed the co ntract with Luxury Vacations. Mr. Adams testified that
1482his company was at the Hampton Inn in Clermont all day on July 31, 2019,
1497presenting another sales seminar. He stated that the Warrens could have
1508come to the Hampton Inn and discussed rescission of thei r contract with the
1522on - site representative of the company.
152919. Ms. Warren testified that she in fact went back to the Hampton Inn on
1544July 31, 2019, and that no one from Luxury Vacations was there.
155620. Mr. Adams testified that the Warrens have an active con tract with
1569Luxury Vacations and the company remains ready to assist the couple in
1581achieving the savings promised at the sales seminar.
158921. In summary, the Warrens present a sympathetic case. They were
1600subjected to a high - pressure sales pitch and succumbed. Once away from the
1614pressurized sales environment, they regretted their purchase and took some
1624steps to rescind it. They repeatedly phoned the number provided by Luxury
1636Vacations. However, the one thing they did not do was take the action
1649specifically set forth in the contract they had just signed: send notice of
1662cancellation within a period of three days via certified mail, return receipt
1674requested. They waited until August 27, 2019, to send a written notice of
1687cancellation to Luxury Vacations.
169122. Section 559.929(2) provides that the performance bond at issue in this
1703proceeding must be in favor of the Department and is for Ñthe use and benefit
1718of a consumer who is injured by the fraud, misrepresentation, breach of
1730contract, or financial failure, or any oth er violation of this part by the seller of
1746travel.Ò There is no evidence that Luxury Vacations committed fraud,
1756misrepresentation, or that it breached its contract with the Warrens. Luxury
1767Vacations did not fail financially. Therefore, the Warrens may only succeed in
1779claiming against the bond by showing that Luxury Vacations violated part XI
1791of chapter 559.
179423. At the hearing, the undersigned raised the possibility that section
1805559.932, titled ÑVacation Certificate Disclosure,Ò might apply in this case.
1816Res pondents argued that this statute did not apply because Luxury
1827Vacations does not sell Ñvacation certificates,Ò which are defined in section
1839559.927(14) as:
1841any arrangement, plan, program, vacation package,
1847or advance travel purchase that promotes,
1853discuss es, or discloses a destination or itinerary or
1862type of travel, whereby a purchaser is entitled to
1871the use of travel, accommodations, or facilities for
1879any number of days, whether certain or uncertain,
1887during the period in which the certificate can be
1896exerc ised, and no specific date or dates for its use
1907are designated. A vacation certificate does not
1914include prearranged travel or tourist - related
1921services when a seller of travel remits full payment
1930for the cost of such services to the provider or
1940supplier wit hin 10 business days of the purchaserÔs
1949initial payment to the seller of travel. The term
1958does not include travel if exact travel dates are
1967selected, guaranteed, and paid for at the time of the
1977purchase.
197824. Respondents were correct that the software lice nse at the heart of the
1992contract between the Warrens and Luxury Vacations did not meet the
2003definition of a Ñvacation certificate.Ò However, the undersigned raised the
2013possibility that the statutory language of section 559.932 reaches more than
2024vacation cer tificates, in spite of its title:
2032(1) A seller of travel must provide each person
2041solicited with a contract that includes the following
2049information, which shall be in 12 - point type, unless
2059otherwise specifiedÈ.
206125. The quoted language does not appear con fined to sales of vacation
2074certificates but applicable to any solicitation by a Ñseller of travelÒ such as
2087Luxury Vacations. Part of the information that must be included in the
2099contract is the following:
2103(h) In immediate proximity to the space reserved
2111in the contract for the date and the name, address,
2121and signature of the purchaser, the following
2128statement in boldfaced type of a size of 10 points:
2138ÑYOU MAY CANCEL THIS CONTRACT
2143WITHOUT ANY PENALTY OR OBLIGATION
2148WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF
2155PURCHASE OR RECEIPT OF THE VACATION
2161CERTIFICATE, WHICHEVER OCCURS LATER.Ò
2165ÑYOU MAY ALSO CANCEL THIS CONTRACT IF
2172ACCOMMODATIONS OR FACILITIES ARE NOT
2177AVAILABLE PURSUANT TO A REQUEST FOR
2183USE AS PROVIDED IN THE CONTRACT.Ò
2189ÑTO CANCEL THIS AGREEMENT, A SIGNED
2195AND DATED COPY OF A STATEMENT THAT
2202YOU ARE CANCELING THE AGREEMENT
2207SHOULD BE MAILED AND POSTMARKED, OR
2213DELIVERED TO (NAME) AT (ADDRESS) NO
2219LATER THAN MIDNIGHT OF (DATE) .Ò
222526. Respondents conceded that if this provision were applicable in the
2236instant ca se, and Luxury Vacations had been required to give the Warrens
224930 days in which to cancel their contract, then the WarrensÔ s August 27,
22632019, cancellation letter was timely. However, Respondents continued to
2272argue that section 559.932, taken as a whole, is plainly intended to apply
2285only to contracts for vacation certificates.
229127. After careful review of the statute and the Proposed Recommended
2302Order of American Contractors Indemnity Company, the undersigned is
2311persuaded that Respondents have read section 559.932 correctly. The statute
2321provides ten discrete provisions that a contract must contain, most of which
2333are clearly directed to the terms and conditions for stays at specific
2345destinations. Nearly all of these provisions would be inapplicable to the
2356sof tware licensing contract but would nonetheless be mandatory if section
2367559.932 applied to this contract.
237228. Further indication that the 30 - day notice requirement is applicable
2384only to vacation certificates is section 559.933, titled Ñ Vacation certifica te
2396cancellation and refund provisions,Ò subsection (1)(a) of which provides:
2406(1) A seller of travel or an assignee must honor a
2417purchaserÔs request to cancel a vacation certificate
2424if such request is made:
2429(a) Within 30 days after the date of purchase or
2439receipt of the vacation certificate, whichever occurs
2446laterÈ.
244729. Section 559.933 is replete with references to the 30 - day cancellation
2460requirement and is clearly limited to vacation certificates.
246830. Aside f rom the 30 - day cancellation period for vacation certificates,
2481part XI of chapter 559 appears to mandate no specific time period for
2494cancellations of contracts.
249731. Looking farther afield, the Federal Trade CommissionÔs ÑCooling OffÒ
2507rule, 16 C . F . R . § 429, gives a consumer in the WarrensÔ s position three days
2527to cancel a sale. Sections 501.021 - .055, Florida Statutes, provide
2538substantially the same right to cancel a Ñhome solicitation sale,Ò which by
2551definition includes the transaction at issue in this proce eding. See
2562§ 501.021(1), Fla. Stat.
256632. Luxury VacationsÔ notice of cancellation rights did not comply fully
2577with the letter of section 501.031, which provides:
2585Every home solicitation sale shall be evidenced by a
2594writing as provided in this section.
2600(1) In a home solicitation sale, the seller must
2609present to and obtain from the buyer his or her
2619signature to a written agreement or offer to
2627purchase which designates, as the date of the
2635transaction, the date on which the buyer actually
2643signs and which contai ns a statement of the buyerÔs
2653rights, which statement complies with subsection
2659(2).
2660(2) The statement must:
2664(a) Appear under the conspicuous caption,
2670ÑBUYERÔS RIGHT TO CANCELÒ;
2674(b) Read as follows: ÑThis is a home solicitation
2683sale, and if you do not want the goods or services,
2694you may cancel this agreement by providing
2701written notice to t he seller in person, by telegram,
2711or by mail. This notice must indicate that you do
2721not want the goods or services and must be
2730delivered or postmarked before midnight of the
2737third business day after you sign this agreement. If
2746you cancel this agreement, th e seller may not keep
2756all or part of any cash down payment.Ò
276433. The Luxury Vacations Ô contract provision was not consistent with
2775section 501.031. It did not include a Ñconspicuous captionÒ of ÑBUYERÔS
2786RIGHT TO CANCELÒ in all capital letters. It did not i nclude the statutory
2800language verbatim. The cancellation language in the Luxury Vacations Ô
2810contract was printed in bold type but no larger than the other language and
2824was not on the page signed by the Warrens. The Luxury Vacations Ô
2837cancellation clause limi ted the exercise of the cancellation right to written
2849notice via certified mail; the statute provides that the buyer may cancel in
2862person, by telegram, or by mail.
286834. The relevant statutes provide that any person making home
2878solicitation sales must first obtain a permit from the clerk of the court of the
2893county in which the sales are to take place. § 501.022(2), Fla. Stat. The clerk
2908of the court may revoke, suspend, or deny issuance of a home solicitation
2921sales permit for failure to comply with any provisi on of sections 501.021 - .055.
2936§ 501.022(4), Fla. Stat. The Attorney General or a state attorney may initiate
2949proceedings to enjoin any person found to be violating the provisions of
2961sections 501.021 - .055. § 501.052, Fla. Stat. There are criminal penalties t hat
2975attach to violations of the cited sections. See § 501.055, Fla. Stat.
298735. However, the home solicitation sales statutes are silent as to any
2999direct remedy that a consumer may pursue for the failure of a home
3012solicitation seller to abide by the notice p rovision of section 501.031. Also, the
3026terms of the performance bond statute limit consumer claims to violations of
3038part XI of chapter 559. The undersigned was unable to find a provision of
3052part XI that would encompass the home solicitation sellerÔs cancel lation
3063notice requirements. 1
3066C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW
307136. DOAH has jurisdiction of the subject matter of and the parties to this
3085proceeding. §§ 120.569 and 120.57(1), Fla. Stat.
309237. Section 559.927(11) defines Ñseller of travelÒ to mean:
3101any resident or nonres ident person, firm,
3108corporation, or business entity that offers, directly
3115or indirectly, prearranged travel or tourist - related
3123services for individuals or groups, including, but
3130not limited to, vacation packages, or vacation
3137certificates in exchange for a fee, commission, or
31451 Section 559.934, titled ÑDeceptive and unfair trade practice,Ò provides that Ñ[a]cts, conduct,
3159practices, omissions, failings, misrepresentations, or nondisclosures which c onstitute a
3169violation of this part also constitute a deceptive and unfair trade practice for the purpose of
3185s. 501.201 and administrative rules promulgated thereunder. Ò However, the statute does not
3198provide for the reverse, i.e., that a violation of chapte r 501 also constitutes a violation of part
3216XI of chapter 559. Thus, Luxury VacationsÔ failure to comply fully with section 501.031 doe s
3232not establish a ground to claim against the performance bond under section 559.929(2).
3245other valuable consideration. The term includes
3251such person, firm, corporation, or business entity
3258who sells a vacation certificate to third - party
3267merchants for a fee, or in exchange for a
3276commission, or who offers such certificates to
3283consumers in exchange for attendance at sales
3290presentations. The term also includes any business
3297entity offering membership in a travel club or
3305travel services for an advance fee or payment, even
3314if no travel contracts or certificates or vacation or
3323tour p ackages are sold by the business entity. The
3333term does not include third parties who may offer
3342prearranged travel or tourist - related services, but
3350do not participate in travel fulfillment or vacation
3358certificate redemption.
336038. It is undisputed that Luxur y Vacations meets the definition of Ñseller
3373of travel.Ò
337539. Section 559.929 requires sellers of travel to submit a performance
3386bond with the Department. Section 559.929 provides, in relevant part:
3396(2) The bond must be filed with the department
3405on a form adopted by department rule and must be
3415in favor of the department for the use and benefit of
3426a consumer who is injured by the fraud,
3434misrepresentation, breach of contract, or financial
3440failure, or any o ther violation of this part by the
3451seller of travel . Such liability may be enforced by
3461proceeding in an administrative action as specified
3468in subsection (3) or by filing a civil action. The bond
3479must be open to successive claims, but the
3487aggregate amount a warded may not exceed the
3495amount of the bondÈ.
3499(3) A consumer may file a claim against the bond.
3509Such claim, which must be submitted in writing on
3518an affidavit form adopted by department rule, must
3526be submitted to the department within 120 days
3534after an alleged injury has occurred or is discovered
3543to have occurred or a judgment has been entered.
3552The proceedings shall be conducted pursuant to
3559chapter 120. For proceedings conducted pursuant to
3566ss. 120.569 and 120.57, the agency shall act only as
3576a nominal party.
357940. It is undisputed that Mr. WarrenÔs claim against the performance
3590bond was timely filed.
359441. As explained in the Findings of Fact above, Mr. Warren failed to
3607establish that he and his wife were Ñinjured by the fraud, misrepresentation,
3619breach of contract, or financial failure, or any other violati on of this partÒ by
3634Luxury Vacations. The Warrens allowed themselves to fall victim to a high -
3647pressure sales pitch and then failed to cancel the contract according to the
3660express terms provided by Luxury Vacations. They failed to establish that
3671they suffer ed an injury contemplated by section 559.929(2).
368042. This Recommended Order should not be read as a vindication or
3692approval of Luxury VacationsÔ sales practices as described at the hearing. In
3704their submissions, the Warrens included scores of Better Busine ss Bureau
3715complaints filed against Luxury Vacations that made allegations similar to
3725those made by the Warrens in this case. These complaints were pure hearsay
3738and were not considered as evidence in the writing of this Recommended
3750Order. However, they shou ld be read as fair warning to prospective
3762customers of such businesses to perform their due diligence before paying
3773thousands of dollars for a software license.
3780R ECOMMENDATION
3782Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
3795R ECOMME NDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
3806issue a final order denying Michael WarrenÔs claim of $7,593.00 against the
3819performance bond of Luxury Vacations in Paradise, Inc.
3827D ONE A ND E NTERED this 9th day of April , 2021 , in Tallahassee, Leon
3842County, Florida.
3844S
3845L AWRENCE P. S TEVENSON
3850Administrative Law Judge
38531230 Apalachee Parkway
3856Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060
3861(850) 488 - 9675
3865www.doah.state.fl.us
3866Filed with the Clerk of the
3872Division of Administrative Hearings
3876this 9th day of April , 2021 .
3883C OPIES F URNISHED :
3888Blake Adams W. Alan Parkinson, Bureau Chief
3895Luxury Vacations in Paradise, Inc. Bureau of Mediation and Enforcement
3905#219 Department of Agriculture and
39105379 Lyons Road Consumer Services
3915Coconut Creek, Florida 33073 Rhodes Building, R - 3
39242005 A palachee Parkway
3928Michael Cole Warren Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 6500
39362869 Highland View Circle
3940Clermont, Florida 34711 Garen H. Kasparian, Esquire
3947American Contractors Indemnity Company
3951Honorable Nicole ÑNikkiÒ Fried 801 South Figueroa Street
3959Commissioner of Agriculture Los Angeles, California 90017
3966Department of Agriculture and
3970Consumer Services Steven Hall, General Counsel
3976The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Department of Agriculture and
3985Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0810 Consumer Services
39924 07 South Calhoun Street, Suite 520
3999Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0800
4004N OTICE OF R IGHT T O S UBMIT E XCEPTIONS
4015All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from
4028the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended
4039Or der should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this
4055case.
- Date
- Proceedings
- PDF:
- Date: 04/09/2021
- Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/22/2021
- Proceedings: (Petitioner's) Response to American Contractors Indemnity Company Filing March 19, 2021 (Proposed Recommended Order) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/22/2021
- Proceedings: American Contractors Indemnity Company's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
- Date: 03/12/2021
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
- Date: 03/03/2021
- Proceedings: Respondent's Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
- PDF:
- Date: 01/25/2021
- Proceedings: Notice of Hearing by Zoom Conference (hearing set for March 12, 2021; 9:00 a.m., Eastern Time).
- Date: 01/20/2021
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
- PDF:
- Date: 01/13/2021
- Proceedings: Letter to Scott Gagnon from Stephanie White regarding principal filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/13/2021
- Proceedings: Letter to Respondent from Stephanie White acknowledging claim against your principal filed.
Case Information
- Judge:
- LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON
- Date Filed:
- 01/13/2021
- Date Assignment:
- 01/14/2021
- Last Docket Entry:
- 07/15/2021
- Location:
- Clermont, Florida
- District:
- Northern
- Agency:
- ADOPTED IN TOTO
Counsels
-
Blake Adams
Address of Record -
Garen H. Kasparian, Esquire
Address of Record -
W. Alan Parkinson, Bureau Chief
Address of Record -
Michael Cole Warren
Address of Record -
American Contractors Indemnity Company
Address of Record -
Winfrey A Parkinson, Bureau Chief
Address of Record