EXHIBIT 1

Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 1 of 71
*22-000452948*

*22-000452948*

KS1

cc to:

JOHN M. SIRACUSA

ATTORNEY

JANSSEN, SIRACUSA & KEEGAN PLLC

120 S. OLIVE AVENUE

SUITE 504

WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401

SALTPONDS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,

INC.

CASE #: 22-CA-000632-K

COURT: 16TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COUNTY: MONROE

PLAINTIFF(S) DFS-SOP #: 22-000452948

VS.

ROCKHILL INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.

DEFENDANT(S)

_______________________________________/

SUMMONS, COMPLAINT

 

NOTICE OF SERVICE OF PROCESS

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of acceptance of Service of Process by the Chief Financial Officer of the

State of Florida. Said process was received in my office by ELECTRONIC DELIVERY on Tuesday,

November 29, 2022 and a copy was forwarded by ELECTRONIC DELIVERY on Wednesday, November

30, 2022 to the designated agent for the named entity as shown below.

 ROCKHILL INSURANCE COMPANY

 LAURANN M. SAGE

 P.O. BOX 182822

 COLUMBUS, OH 43218

*Our office will only serve the initial process(Summons and Complaint) or Subpoena and is not responsible

for transmittal of any subsequent filings, pleadings, or documents unless otherwise ordered by the Court

pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule #1.080

 

 Jimmy Patronis

 Chief Financial Officer

Office of the General Counsel - Service of Process Section

200 East Gaines Street - P.O. Box 6200 - Tallahassee, FL 32314-6200 - (850)413-4200

Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 2 of 71
Filing # 157501258 E-Filed 09/15/2022 02:51:43 PM Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 3 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 4 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 5 of 71
JANSSEN, SIRACUSA & KEEGAN PLLC

19 West Flagler Street, Suite 618 * Miami, FL 33130

Telephone (305) 428-2776 * Facsimile (561) 420-0576

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 

16TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND 

FOR MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 

SALTPONDS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, 

INC. 

Plaintiff, 

v.

ROCKHILL INSURANCE COMPANY; COLONY 

INSURANCE COMPANY; FIRST SPECIALTY 

INSURANCE CORP.; HALLMARK SPECIALTY 

INSURANCE COMPANY/LLOYD’S OF 

LONDON; HOMELAND INSURANCE 

COMPANY OF NEW YORK; LEXINGTON 

INSURANCE COMPANY; LIBERTY SURPLUS 

INSURANCE CORPORATION; CERTAIN 

UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S, LONDON

SUBSCRIBING TO CERTIFICATE OF 

INSURANCE NO. EB3R16-10008; MITSUI 

SUMITOMO INSURANCE COMPANY OF 

AMERICA; RSUI INDEMNITY; SCOTTSDALE 

INSURANCE COMPANY; and UNITED 

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendants. 

___________________________________________/ 

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, SALTPONDS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. (“PLAINTIFF”), sues 

Defendants, ROCKHILL INSURANCE COMPANY (“ROCKHILL”), COLONY INSURANCE 

COMPANY (“COLONY”), FIRST SPECIALTY INSURANCE CORP. (“FIRST SPECIALTY”), 

HALLMARK SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY/LLOYD’S OF LONDON 

(“HALLMARK”), HOMELAND INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK 

(“HOMELAND”), LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY (“LEXINGTON”), LIBERTY 

SURPLUS INSURANCE CORPORATION (“LIBERTY”), CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT 

 22-CA-000632-K

Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 6 of 71
Complaint

2 

JANSSEN, SIRACUSA & KEEGAN PLLC

19 West Flagler Street, Suite 618 * Miami, FL 33130

Telephone (305) 428-2776 * Facsimile (561) 420-0576

LLOYD’S, LONDON, SUBSCRIBING TO CERFIFICATE OF INSURANCE NO. EB3R16-

10008, (“LLOYD’S”), MITSUI SUMITOMO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA

(“MITSUI”), RSUI INDEMNITY (“RSUI”), SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY 

(“SCOTTSDALE”) and UNITED NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY (“UNITED”)

(collectively the “DEFENDANTS”), and states:

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

1. This is an action for declaratory relief pursuant to Chapter 86 of the Florida Statutes. 

2. At all times material, PLAINTIFF was and is a non-profit condominium association 

and corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida and was authorized 

to do, and is doing business in Key West, Florida. 

3. At all times material, PLAINTIFF is the owner of a residential condominium 

property located at 3635 - 75 Seaside Drive, Key West, Florida (“Property”). 

4. At all times material, DEFENDANTS, were and are commercial residential surplus 

lines insurers authorized to transact and transacting insurance within the State of Florida. 

5. At all times material, DEFENDANTS provided commercial residential property 

insurance coverage to property owners residing in Monroe County, Florida, including 

PLAINTIFF.

6. On or about March 20, 2017, DEFENDANTS offered to provide the PLAINTIFF 

with commercial residential property insurance coverage.

7. On or about March 20, 2017, PLAINTIFF accepted DEFENDANTS’ offer of 

commercial residential property insurance coverage and paid the $114,184.00 premium due

DEFENDANTS. 

Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 7 of 71
Complaint

3 

JANSSEN, SIRACUSA & KEEGAN PLLC

19 West Flagler Street, Suite 618 * Miami, FL 33130

Telephone (305) 428-2776 * Facsimile (561) 420-0576

8. DEFENDANTS issued Insurance Policy No. EB3R16-10008, which provides, 

among other things, commercial residential property insurance coverage to PLAINTIFF for the 

twelve (12) month period beginning March 20, 2017. A copy of the Declarations Page and 

Insurance Policy (collectively “Insurance Contract”) is attached as Composite Exhibit “A.”

9. Included in the Insurance Contract is an Appendix – Market Security that “sets forth 

the participating insurers to the coverage provided” in the Insurance Contract. Each of the 

DEFENDANTS is listed as a participating insurer in the Appendix – Market Security. See 

Composite Exhibit “A.” The participation of DEFENDANTS is hereafter referred to as the

“Skinner Program.” 

10. The intent and purpose of the Insurance Contract is to provide commercial 

residential property insurance coverage to its named insured, PLAINTIFF, for damages caused by 

named windstorms. 

11. On September 10, 2017, Hurricane Irma made landfall in Monroe County, and 

caused damage to the Property.

12. PLAINTIFF timely reported its claim to DEFENDANTS.

13. The damages suffered by PLAINTIFF are estimated to be $2,717,876.55. 

14. On February 28, 2019, PLAINTIFF demanded an appraisal of its loss in writing. 

15. DEFENDANTS rejected PLAINTIFF’s demand for appraisal multiple times. 

16. After each rejection of PLAINTIFF’s demand for appraisal, PLAINTIFF continued 

to cooperate with DEFENDANTS’ ongoing investigation and requests for information and 

documentation. 

Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 8 of 71
Complaint

4 

JANSSEN, SIRACUSA & KEEGAN PLLC

19 West Flagler Street, Suite 618 * Miami, FL 33130

Telephone (305) 428-2776 * Facsimile (561) 420-0576

17. On June 17, 2020, PLAINTIFF brought a federal action seeking specific 

performance of the appraisal provision of the Insurance Contract and alternative claims for breach 

of contract. 

18. On October 13, 2020, DEFENDANTS denied coverage for PLAINTIFF’s claim. 

19. In March, 2021, ROCKHILL represented that due to other claims within the 

“Skinner Program”, in which ROCKHILL asserts PLAINTIFF’s claim is included, ROCKHILL 

had nearly exhausted its policy limits. 

20. On March 10, 2021, PLAINTIFF amended its complaint in the federal litigation to 

include the “Skinner Program” insurers identified in the “Appendix – Market Security”.

21. On September 10, 2021, the federal court stayed the action pending appraisal and 

dismissed all defendants except ROCKHILL.

22. The appraisal will likely be completed this year, but not before the fifth anniversary 

of Hurricane Irma.

23. The “Appendix – Market Security” lists only the percentage of the Overall Limit 

for which each insurer is responsible. 

24. The program administrator for the “Skinner Program” claimed that the participation 

of each insurer was layered, not a participation percentage, and thus, these insurers were excess 

carriers.

25. Beyond stating that ROCKHILL provided the first layer of coverage under the 

Insurance Contract, the program administrator for the “Skinner Program” was unable to provide 

information regarding the layers for any of the excess carriers.

Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 9 of 71
Complaint

5 

JANSSEN, SIRACUSA & KEEGAN PLLC

19 West Flagler Street, Suite 618 * Miami, FL 33130

Telephone (305) 428-2776 * Facsimile (561) 420-0576

26. Nowhere in the Insurance Contract is there any indication that participation is 

layered, that the other insurers are excess carriers, or at what amount of loss each insurer’s 

responsibility is triggered. 

27. The program administrator for the “Skinner Program” further claimed that 

PLAINTIFF’s property is one of seven insured properties under the program. 

28. Nowhere in the Insurance Contract is there any indication that PLAINTIFF is one 

of multiple properties to which ROCKHILL’s coverage limit applies.

29. The program administrator for the “Skinner Program” was unable to explain 

whether ROCKHILL’s coverage limit applies per insured in the program, or whether 

PLAINTIFF’s claim would be aggregated with claims of the other unknown insureds to exhaust 

ROCKHILL’s limit.

30. Nowhere in the Insurance Contract is there any indication whether ROCKHILL’s 

coverage limit is per insured or is the aggregate of all claims from any insured in the “Skinner 

Program.” 

31. The program administrator for the “Skinner Program” was unable to provide 

information to PLAINTIFF regarding whether ROCKHILL would continue to defend claims in 

excess of its limit on behalf of the other insurers in the “Skinner Program” or whether the excess 

insurer(s) would take a direct participation role. 

32. Nowhere in the Insurance Contract is there any indication which of the “Skinner 

Program” insurers in the “Appendix – Market Security” would participate in the event 

ROCKHILL’s limit was exceeded, and if so, whether they would take a direct participation role. 

33. The claim that ROCKHILL’s limit is nearly exhausted, the language in the 

Insurance Contract, and the contrary positions taken by DEFENDANTS and the program 

Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 10 of 71
Complaint

6 

JANSSEN, SIRACUSA & KEEGAN PLLC

19 West Flagler Street, Suite 618 * Miami, FL 33130

Telephone (305) 428-2776 * Facsimile (561) 420-0576

administrator for the “Skinner Program” have created doubt and uncertainty as to which insurer 

may be liable to pay for PLAINTIFF’s damages.

34. Venue lies in Monroe County, Florida because, among other things, the Insurance 

Contract was entered into and provides insurance coverage in Monroe County, Florida.

35. PLAINTIFF has complied with its obligations under the Insurance Contract.

36. All conditions precedent to the filing of this action have occurred, have been waived 

and/or are excused.

COUNT I

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

37. This is an action by PLAINTIFF against DEFENDANTS for declaratory judgment 

and supplemental relief, the subject matter of which exceeds $30,000.00 exclusive of interest, costs 

and attorney’s fees, pursuant to Chapter 86, Florida Statutes.

38. PLAINTIFF re-alleges and re-avers the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 

through 36 above with the same force and effect as if fully restated and set forth herein.

39. Because of the conflicts between the Insurance Contract, the positions taken by 

DEFENDANTS and the program administrator for the “Skinner Program”, and because all of the 

information that may establish the rights, obligations, and duties of PLAINTIFF and 

DEFENDANTS is in the possession of DEFENDANTS (to the exclusion of PLAINTIFF), 

PLAINTIFF is uncertain as to its rights, duties, and obligations under the Insurance Contract, the 

“Skinner Program” and the “Appendix – Market Security.” 

40. Plaintiff requires a declaration as to (a) whether each of the DEFENDANTS 

participates in the “Skinner Program” on a percentage basis or on a layered basis; (b) whether each 

of the DEFENDANTS participate in the “Skinner Program” as a participating insurer or as an 

excess carrier; (c) if each of the DEFENDANTS is an excess carrier, what layer does each of the 

Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 11 of 71
Complaint

7 

JANSSEN, SIRACUSA & KEEGAN PLLC

19 West Flagler Street, Suite 618 * Miami, FL 33130

Telephone (305) 428-2776 * Facsimile (561) 420-0576

DEFENDANTS occupy (or, stated differently, at what dollar amount is each of the 

DEFENDANTS’ obligation to pay PLAINTIFF’s claim triggered); (d) whether PLAINTIFF is one 

of multiple properties to which the “Skinner Program” applies, and if so, whether any of those 

properties made claims that reduce the payment obligation of ROCKHILL to PLAINTIFF; (e) 

whether ROCKHILL’s coverage limit applies per insured in the “Skinner Program” or whether it 

applies in the aggregate to all insureds; and (f) whether ROCKHILL continues to be responsible 

for defending PLAINTIFF’s claim even if its limit of insurance is exhausted or whether the other 

DEFENDANTS assume a direct participation role under the Insurance Contract.

41. DEFENDANTS’ actions, including their participation in the “Skinner Program” 

and their failure to provide transparency to PLAINTIFF regarding the guidelines of the “Skinner 

Program” have raised doubt and insecurity in PLAINTIFF regarding the validity, applicability, 

and enforceability of the Insurance Contract, the “Skinner Program”, and the “Appendix – Market 

Security,” specifically, (a) whether each of the DEFENDANTS participates in the “Skinner 

Program” on a percentage basis or on a layered basis; (b) whether each of the DEFENDANTS 

participate in the “Skinner Program” as a participating insurer or as an excess carrier; (c) if each 

of the DEFENDANTS is an excess carrier, what layer does each of the DEFENDANTS occupy 

(or, stated differently, at what dollar amount is each of the DEFENDANTS’ obligation to pay 

PLAINTIFF’s claim triggered); (d) whether PLAINTIFF is one of multiple properties to which 

the “Skinner Program” applies, and if so, whether any of those properties made claims that reduce 

the payment obligation of ROCKHILL to PLAINTIFF; (e) whether ROCKHILL’s coverage limit 

applies per insured in the “Skinner Program” or whether it applies in the aggregate to all insureds; 

and (f) whether ROCKHILL continues to be responsible for defending PLAINTIFF’s claim even 

Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 12 of 71
Complaint

8 

JANSSEN, SIRACUSA & KEEGAN PLLC

19 West Flagler Street, Suite 618 * Miami, FL 33130

Telephone (305) 428-2776 * Facsimile (561) 420-0576

if its limit of insurance is exhausted or whether the other DEFENDANTS assume a direct 

participation role under the Insurance Contract.

42. PLAINTIFF is entitled to a declaratory judgment establishing (a) whether each of 

the DEFENDANTS participates in the “Skinner Program” on a percentage basis or on a layered 

basis; (b) whether each of the DEFENDANTS participates in the “Skinner Program” as a 

participating insurer or as an excess carrier; (c) if each of the DEFENDANTS is an excess carrier, 

what layer does each of the DEFENDANTS occupy (or, stated differently, at what dollar amount 

is each of the DEFENDANTS’ obligation to pay PLAINTIFF’s claim triggered); (d) whether 

PLAINTIFF is one of multiple properties to which the “Skinner Program” applies, and if so, 

whether any of those properties made claims that reduce the payment obligation of ROCKHILL 

to PLAINTIFF; (e) whether ROCKHILL’s coverage limit applies per insured in the “Skinner 

Program” or whether it applies in the aggregate to all insureds; and (f) whether ROCKHILL 

continues to be responsible for defending PLAINTIFF’s claim even if its limit of insurance is 

exhausted or whether the other DEFENDANTS assume a direct participation role under the 

Insurance Contract.

43. PLAINTIFF’s rights are dependent upon the facts set forth herein and the law 

applicable to those facts.

44. PLAINTIFF and DEFENDANTS have present, actual, adverse and antagonistic 

interests in the validity, applicability, and enforceability of the Insurance Contract, the “Skinner 

Program,” and the “Appendix – Market Security” and (a) whether each of the DEFENDANTS 

participate in the “Skinner Program” on a percentage basis or on a layered basis; (b) whether each 

of the DEFENDANTS participate in the “Skinner Program” as a participating insurer or as an 

excess carrier; (c) if each of the DEFENDANTS is an excess carrier, what layer does each of the 

Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 13 of 71
Complaint

9 

JANSSEN, SIRACUSA & KEEGAN PLLC

19 West Flagler Street, Suite 618 * Miami, FL 33130

Telephone (305) 428-2776 * Facsimile (561) 420-0576

DEFENDANTS occupy (or, stated differently, at what dollar amount is each of the 

DEFENDANTS’ obligation to pay PLAINTIFF’s claim triggered); (d) whether PLAINTIFF is one 

of multiple properties to which the “Skinner Program” applies, and if so, whether any of those 

properties made claims that reduce the payment obligation of ROCKHILL to PLAINTIFF; (e) 

whether ROCKHILL’s coverage limit applies per insured in the “Skinner Program” or whether it 

applies in the aggregate to all insureds; and (f) whether ROCKHILL continues to be responsible 

for defending PLAINTIFF’s claim even if its limit of insurance is exhausted or whether the other 

DEFENDANTS assume a direct participation role under the Insurance Contract.

45. The PLAINTIFF’s and DEFENDANTS’ adverse and antagonistic interests are 

before this Court by proper process. The relief PLAINTIFF seeks is not the mere rendering of legal 

advice.

46. PLAINTIFF has a bona fide, present, and practical need for a declaration of its 

rights under the Insurance Contract, the “Skinner Program”, and the “Appendix – Market 

Security.”

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, SALTPONDS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., 

requests that this Court enter a declaratory judgment against Defendants, ROCKHILL 

INSURANCE COMPANY, COLONY INSURANCE COMPANY, FIRST SPECIALTY 

INSURANCE CORP., HALLMARK SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY/LLOYD’S OF 

LONDON, HOMELAND INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, LEXINGTON 

INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY SURPLUS INSURANCE CORPORATION, CERTAIN 

UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S, LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO CERTIFICATE OF 

INSURANCE NO. EB3R16-10008, MITSUI SUMITOMO INSURANCE COMPANY OF 

AMERICA, RSUI INDEMNITY, SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY, and UNITED

Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 14 of 71
Complaint

10

JANSSEN, SIRACUSA & KEEGAN PLLC

19 West Flagler Street, Suite 618 * Miami, FL 33130

Telephone (305) 428-2776 * Facsimile (561) 420-0576

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, determining:

(a) whether each of the DEFENDANTS participate in the “Skinner Program” on a 

percentage basis or on a layered basis; 

(b) whether each of the DEFENDANTS participate in the “Skinner Program” as a 

participating insurer or as an excess carrier; 

(c) if each of the DEFENDANTS is an excess carrier, what layer does each of the 

DEFENDANTS occupy (or, stated differently, at what dollar amount is each of the 

DEFENDANTS’ obligation to pay PLAINTIFF’s claim triggered); 

(d) whether PLAINTIFF is one of multiple properties to which the “Skinner Program” 

applies, and if so, whether any of those properties made claims that reduce the payment obligation 

of ROCKHILL to PLAINTIFF; 

(e) whether ROCKHILL’s coverage limit applies per insured in the “Skinner Program” or 

whether it applies in the aggregate to all insureds; and 

(f) whether ROCKHILL continues to be responsible for defending PLAINTIFF’s claim 

even if its limit of insurance is exhausted or whether the other DEFENDANTS assume a direct 

participation role under the Insurance Contract, 

and awarding any other, further, and supplemental relief the Court deems just, equitable, and 

proper.

Dated: September 15, 2022. 

[Signature Page follows] 

Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 15 of 71
Complaint

11

JANSSEN, SIRACUSA & KEEGAN PLLC

19 West Flagler Street, Suite 618 * Miami, FL 33130

Telephone (305) 428-2776 * Facsimile (561) 420-0576

JANSSEN, SIRACUSA & KEEGAN PLLC

Counsel for Plaintiff, 

Saltponds Condominium Association, Inc. 

19 West Flagler Street, Suite 618 

Miami, Florida 33130 

Telephone (561) 428-2776 

Facsimile (561) 420-0576 

Email: jsiracusa@jasilaw.com

Email: jjanssen@jasilaw.com

By: s/ John M. Siracusa_________ 

JOSEPH W. JANSSEN, III

Florida Bar No. 160067 

JOHN M. SIRACUSA

Florida Bar No. 159670 

Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 16 of 71
&20326,7(

(;+,%,73$ ́

Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 17 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 18 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 19 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 20 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 21 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 22 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 23 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 24 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 25 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 26 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 27 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 28 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 29 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 30 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 31 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 32 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 33 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 34 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 35 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 36 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 37 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 38 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 39 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 40 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 41 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 42 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 43 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 44 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 45 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 46 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 47 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 48 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 49 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 50 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 51 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 52 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 53 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 54 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 55 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 56 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 57 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 58 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 59 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 60 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 61 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 62 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 63 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 64 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 65 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 66 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 67 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 68 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 69 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 70 of 71
Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 71 of 71