With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". proceeding, see DelMonico, 116 So.3d at 1213-14, 1217-20, we decline to reach the qualified immunity issue because it was not raised below. See AGM Invs., LLC, 219 So.3d at 927 n.5. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order granting summary judgment on count one and remand for further proceedings. In all other respects, we affirm. AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; and REMANDED. ORFINGER and WALLIS, JJ., concur. 1 . See Perl v. Omni Int'l of Miami, Ltd., 439 So.2d 316, 317 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (concluding that fraud count in complaint based on earlier unemployment compensation case was barred by litigation privilege (citing Robertson v. Indus. Ins. Co., 75 So.2d 198, 199 (Fla. 1954))). 2 . See LatAm Invs., LLC v. Holland & Knight, LLP, 88 So.3d 240, 242-43 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (<HOLDING>). Although count three is actually a claim for

A: holding that a judgment as to the title in a prior litigation was not subject to collateral attack
B: holding that an escrow agent and title insurer may have voluntarily assumed a duty to advise the buyers on their potential legal liability for  subcontractors liens on the property in addition to the defendants ordinary contractual and professional duties as an escrow agent and title insurer
C: recognizing that most other courts apply title vii principles to title ix cases but refusing to apply title viis knew or should have known standard to a title ix claim
D: holding litigation privilege applied to action for abuse of process citing am natl title  escrow of fla v guar title  tr co 748 so2d 1054 1055 fla 4th dca 2000
D.