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.
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
