The National Flood Insurance Program is not Insurance but is a Government Entity
Post 5235
See the video at https://lnkd.in/gTK43frb and at https://lnkd.in/g3hDbN6u and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5200 posts.
A Suit Against the NFPA Must be Filed in Federal Court
In Brian Bevel v. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) , United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, 8:25-cv-02159-JLB-CPT (November 21, 2025)Judge: John L. Badalamenti resolved the dispute over insurance coverage..
Key Facts
Parties and Claim:
Plaintiff Brian Bevel sued FEMA for breach of an insurance contract under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The policy insured Bevel’s property in Longboat Key, Florida, against flood damage.
Incident: The property sustained damage on September 26, 2024. Bevel notified FEMA, which investigated but allegedly failed to adjust the loss per policy terms, constituting a material breach.
Procedural History:
Bevel filed the breach-of-contract suit in Florida state circuit court on May 6, 2025, seeking damages exceeding $50,000. FEMA removed the case to federal court on grounds of federal officer removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1).
FEMA moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, citing derivative jurisdiction and sovereign immunity. Bevel failed to timely respond; the court ordered a response (Doc. 20), which was filed late (Doc. 21) but accepted in the court’s discretion.
Bevel’s Response Arguments (Rejected):
FEMA, as the removing party, should not seek dismissal. Independent jurisdiction exists under 42 U.S.C. §§ 4071–4072 (NFIP claims) or 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity). Dismissal would waste resources, as Bevel could refile in federal court.
Relevant Law and Analysis
The court’s decision hinges on federal courts’ limited jurisdiction and the requirement to resolve jurisdictional issues first. The motion was treated as a factual attack under Rule 12(b)(1), allowing consideration of matters outside the pleadings. Burden to establish jurisdiction rests with the plaintiff. Dismissals for lack of jurisdiction are without prejudice.
Core Doctrines Applied
Federal jurisdiction over a removed case derives from the state court’s initial jurisdiction. If the state court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, the federal court acquires none upon removal, even if it would have had original jurisdiction.
Florida state court lacked jurisdiction over Bevel’s NFIP breach claim, as 42 U.S.C. § 4072 vests “original exclusive jurisdiction” in the federal district court where the property is located. Bevel’s policy was issued under § 4071 (NFIP claims).
Statutory Framework
42 U.S.C. § 4071:
Authorizes issuance of Standard Flood Insurance Policies (SFIPs) by FEMA (or Write Your Own program insurers).
42 U.S.C. § 4072:
Grants federal district courts “original exclusive jurisdiction” over suits by policyholders against FEMA for disallowed claims or breach. Venue is proper in the district where the insured property is located.
28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1):
Allows removal by federal officers/agents acting under federal law (FEMA qualified). However, derivative jurisdiction still applies.
28 U.S.C. § 1332:
Diversity jurisdiction argued by Bevel but irrelevant due to derivative doctrine; NFIP claims are statutorily exclusive to federal question jurisdiction.
Plaintiff’s Arguments and Rebuttals
FEMA’s Removal as Estoppel:
Rejected; FEMA can seek dismissal in federal court even after removal, as it could have in state court based on § 4072.
Efficiency/Waste:
Dismissal without prejudice allows refiling in proper federal court; plaintiff “filed in the wrong court” and must comply with § 4072.
Implications
This order underscores the strict enforcement of exclusive federal jurisdiction for NFIP claims, preventing “forum shopping” via state filings followed by removal.
Plaintiffs must file directly in federal court to avoid derivative jurisdiction pitfalls. Sovereign immunity further insulates FEMA from state-court suits.
Bevel retains the right to refile in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Outcome
FEMA’s Motion to Dismiss was granted; Plaintiff’s Complaint was dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and Plaintiff may refile in the proper federal court.
ZALMA OPINION
FEMA is not an insurance company. It is a federal government agency that provides to people in flood zones indemnity to those who pay for the protection. It is not insurance. By its creation as a federal agency suits against FEMA can only be brought in federal courts. The Plaintiff attempted to avoid federal court by filing in state court only to have FEMA remove the case to a federal court where it was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Chutzpah is not Enough
Post 5397
Posted on July 20, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video and at https://lnkd.in/gNUs2XzT and at https://lnkd.in/g2MawyzX
Magistrate Issues a Search Warrant if there is a Fair Probability that Contraband or Evidence of a Crime will be Found in a Particular Place.
In United States Of America v. Frank Suess, et al., CRIMINAL No. 3:24-308, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (July 16, 2026) a federal grand jury indicted Frank Suess, Melissa Driscoll, and others in a 55-count health care fraud and anti-kickback prosecution arising from an alleged scheme involving medically unnecessary prescription “foot baths.”
As part of the investigation, the FBI obtained an August 19, 2022 warrant to search Driscoll’s Sterling Pharmacy Yahoo email account for emails from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020. Driscoll moved to suppress the resulting evidence, arguing that the warrant lacked probable cause, was overbroad, and rested on material misstatements and omissions.
LAW:
The ...
Fraud Shouldn’t Pay
Post 5396
See the video and at https://rumble.com/v7ctgmq-the-great-jewel-theft.html at https://youtu.be/aRbQ2sJfGwA
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the ¬¬¬Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
The Insured purchased, for the first time in his life, a policy of Personal Articles Floater Insurance (PAF) scheduling $125,000 worth of ladies jewelry. He advised the insurer that the jewelry was always kept in a class E safe at his residence. He also told the insurer that he was employed full time as the owner of a gasoline service station and that he had never been canceled or suffered a previous loss.
One month after the policy was ...
Day Care Owner Loses Subsidies Because She Criticized State
Post 5421
Posted on August 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
First Amendment Right Will be Allowed to Go to Trial
In Betsey J. Grant v. Maine State Department Of Heath And Human Services, No. 1:25-cv-00490-JAW, United States District Court, D. Maine (August 6, 2026), Betsey J. Grant, a licensed childcare provider and operator of Tiny Tikes Daycare in Trenton, Maine, sued Maine DHHS and several employees after she publicly criticized DHHS before Maine’s Government Oversight Committee and alleged that officials retaliated against her.
She claimed DHHS imposed and extended a conditional license, published stigmatizing information, interfered with subsidies and program funding, removed her from a food program, rescinded an expansion grant, and used biased or falsified evidence in licensing proceedings. Following the March 10, 2023, GOC testimony, Ms. Grant alleges that foster children's subsidies (approximately $30,000) were withheld; she was removed from the ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units. After an underlying personal injury action was filed, Union Mutual determined that the property actually contained three apartment units and rescinded the policies on the ground that the defendants had made a material misrepresentation in the applications.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true facts been disclosed. To establish materiality as a matter of law, the insurer must submit documentation of its underwriting practices, such as manuals, guidelines, bulletins, or rules addressing similar risks.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
As a result, the...
