ELIO MARTINEZ, JR. AND PATRICIA MARTINEZ,

v.

STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY,

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Brown v. Giffen Indus., Inc., 281 So. 2d 897, 900 (Fla. 1973) (rebuttable presumption of mailing established through evidence of business mailing practice); Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Alvarez, 443 So. 2d 279, 280 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (observing that if holding in Jarrod v. Assocs. Disc. Corp., 99 So. 2d 272, 278 (Fla. 1957), was not abrogated by Brown, it was certainly “done away with in 1979 with the enactment of Section 90.406, Florida Statutes”); Thorlton v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 257 So. 3d 596, 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (finding that witness’ testimony was sufficient to create rebuttable presumption of mailing of letter where bank was not entity that ultimately mailed it but had routine practice for submitting default letters to third-party vendor which then mailed them and sent back proof of mailing); CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Hoskinson, 200 So. 3d 191, 192 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (finding sufficient evidence to show that letter was mailed where witness testified to business practice of drafting letters and delivering them to mailroom for collection by postal service); Progressive Am. Ins. Co. v. Kurtz, 518 So. 2d 1339, 1341 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (presumption especially strong where insured received other mail, such as renewal notices).