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.
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
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 ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
