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.
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Employee Report of Fraud Results in Damages Suit After Qui Tam Suit Settled
No Statutory Hearing Right Arose Because No Dental Commission Complaint License Suspension, Revocation, Or Sanction Occurred.
Post 4855
Posted on October 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Abbas Mohammadi et al. v. William M. Tong et al., No. AC 47598, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 29, 2026) Abbas Mohammadi owned and operated Columbia Dental, P.C., which provided dental services through multiple Connecticut offices; Columbia Oral Maxillofacial Imaging, LLC served as the billing entity.
From April 2012 to February 27, 2013, Columbia Dental employed Brittany Ames Mahoney as a dental assistant. During her employment, Mahoney claimed to have discovered certain billing irregularities, including, but not limited to, false and fraudulent reimbursement claims submitted to the Department of Social Services for services rendered to Medicaid beneficiaries. Mahoney filed a complaint and an affidavit in the United States District Court for the District of...
Another Anniversary for Barry Zalma, Inc
Posted on October 1, 2026 by Barry Zalma
From October 1, 1979 – 2026
Post 4854
Read the full issue of ZIFL at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ZIFL-10-01-2026.pdf Forty seven years ago today I left the world of the employed and became an entrepreneur by opening my own law firm. The law practice was incorporated shortly thereafter as Barry Zalma, Inc.
When I opened for business on October 1, 1979, I had no clients and no certainty that I would have any in the future. I had borrowed money from the bank to carry me through the first six months and was concerned about my ability to pay the loan with my third child about to be born.
Much to my surprise and pleasure, on October 1, 1979, at 8:10 a.m., the best claims handler in the London market, Alan Warboys, called from London and provided me with my first case as an independent lawyer to represent Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London. He, and the Lloyd’s Underwriters he represented, showed faith in me as a lawyer and insurance expert. Alan is now, although ...
Defendants Successfully Moved for Summary Judgment
Post 4854
Posted on September 30, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Jeffrey Wayne Phillips v. Creative Website Studios, et al., No. 5:23-CV-568-BO-BM, United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division (September 28, 2026) the Court needed to rule on the order and memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”) of the Magistrate.
Jeffrey Wayne Phillips had contracted with Creative Website Studios and SR Telecommunications for website and hosting services. He alleged that defendants repeatedly billed him for hosting periods he had already paid for and later took down his website. Phillips claimed the outage prevented him from bidding on U.S. government security contracts and sought roughly $300 million in consequential damages.
LAW
Under North Carolina law, fraud requires a false material representation or concealment, intent and effect of deception, resulting damage, and reasonable reliance. Obtaining property by false pretenses similarly requires an ...
