Filing Suit Two Days Late Defeats Suit
Post number 5316
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gSWK5nbF, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/geKteE8f and at https://lnkd.in/gQNVMpNy, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Pay Careful Consideration to Limitation Period in NFPA policy
In Luis Medina et al v. Wright National Flood Insurance Company, No. 8:25-cv-02628-SDM-AEP, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division (March 23, 2026) the USDC resolved a Flood insurance claims suit.
FACTS
Luis Medina and Luz Segura filed suit against Wright National Flood Insurance Company, alleging breach of contract stemming from flood damage to their home sustained on August 5, 2024. The property was covered under a Standard Flood Insurance Policy issued by Wright, which participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
Wright sent the plaintiffs a partial denial of coverage via email on September 24, 2024, after an initial attempt to notify them failed. The plaintiffs initiated their lawsuit on September 26, 2025.
LAW
Claims under an NFIP policy are governed by a strict limitations period: suit must be filed within one year of the date the notice of disallowance or partial disallowance is mailed to the insured. This requirement is set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 4072 and 44 C.F.R. pt. 61, app. A(1), art. VII(O) (2022).
LEGAL ISSUES
The central legal issue WAs whether the plaintiffs’ claim was timely filed in accordance with the statutory one-year limitations period for NFIP policies. The defendant, Wright National Flood Insurance Company, moved to dismiss the action on the grounds that it was time-barred.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
The court noted that the plaintiffs received notice of partial disallowance on September 24, 2024. Their lawsuit was filed on September 26, 2025, more than one year after the notice was sent.
Because the limitations period is calculated from the date of mailing the notice, the claim was untimely.
The plaintiffs did not respond to Wright’s motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the court granted the motion to dismiss and ordered the case closed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 4072; 44 C.F.R. pt. 61, app. A(1), art. VII(O) (2022).
Accordingly, the motion to dismiss was GRANTED, and the action was
DISMISSED.
ZALMA OPINION
The National Flood Insurance Program is not treated like insurance issued by private insurers. It is a creature of statute that can only be resolved in a federal court and whose conditions must be interpreted with a requirement for strict compliance with the terms of the flood insurance contract. The suit was filed a few days later than one year from the partial denial and that was sufficient to dismiss the suit.
(c) 2026 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://gbarryzalma.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.
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 ...
Attempt to Withdraw Plea After Sentencing Fails
Post number 5346
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/admit-crime-ready-do-time-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-hgyce, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Stealing from Insurers and Employer Gets Defendant Five Years in Prison
In State of Wisconsin v. Jacquelyn R. Harris, No. 2025AP489-CR, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin (April 22, 2026) Harris pled no contest and was found guilty. She was sentenced to five years of initial confinement and three years of extended supervision, with restitution ordered in the amounts of $31,086 to Kaliber and $25,000 to Erie Insurance Company.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In late 2022, Jacquelyn R. Harris was charged with theft in a business setting under WIS. STAT. § 943.20(1)(b) (2023-24). Harris, while employed as the office manager for Kaliber Collision Repair in Port ...
Plaintiff May Try Again to get a Judgment
Posted on May 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Just Because a Defendant Defaults Evidence is Needed to get a Judgment
Even on a Default Motion the Plaintiff Must Do More Than Rely on Conclusory Allegations.
Post number 5356
The Commissioners Of The State Insurance Fund v. Capcon Construction Industries Corp., Capcon Construction Supply Corp., Jab Masonry Corp., Agra Masonry Inc., Agra Industries Usa Corp, A & A Masonry Corp., Alexander Shvartsberg, Darren Caputo, Maryann Furman, Index No. 452680/2024, MOTION SEQ. No. 003, 2026 NY Slip Op 31767(U), Supreme Court, New York County (April 20, 2026)
FACTS
The Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund (SIF) had already obtained two judgments for unpaid workers’ compensation insurance premiums: one against A\&A Masonry Corp. and another, much larger one, against Agra Masonry Inc. SIF then brought this action against several related corporations and individuals, alleging that they all operated as a single de facto enterprise and that assets had ...
Defaulting Fraud Perpetrator Lets Insurer Defeat Fraud
Post number 5355
Posted on May 21, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Transamerica Life Insurance Company v. John Joseph Egan, et al., No. 25-cv-06167-JD, United States District Court, N.D. California (May 12, 2026) Transamerica Life Insurance Company issued John Egan a life insurance policy with a long-term care rider that covered in-home skilled nursing or other professional care if he qualified as chronically ill.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In 2023, Egan submitted a claim alleging severe pain, major loss of daily functioning, and limited mobility following an auto accident. Transamerica approved coverage and paid benefits based on those representations and repeated proofs of loss describing in-home care services. After later surveillance in 2024 and 2025 showed Egan working, driving, shopping, and otherwise functioning without visible impairment — and showed no evidence of in-home care — Transamerica concluded that the claim was fraudulent and filed suit.
Transamerica surveilled ...
Defaulting Fraud Perpetrator Lets Insurer Defeat Fraud
Post number 5355
Posted on May 21, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Transamerica Life Insurance Company v. John Joseph Egan, et al., No. 25-cv-06167-JD, United States District Court, N.D. California (May 12, 2026) Transamerica Life Insurance Company issued John Egan a life insurance policy with a long-term care rider that covered in-home skilled nursing or other professional care if he qualified as chronically ill.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In 2023, Egan submitted a claim alleging severe pain, major loss of daily functioning, and limited mobility following an auto accident. Transamerica approved coverage and paid benefits based on those representations and repeated proofs of loss describing in-home care services. After later surveillance in 2024 and 2025 showed Egan working, driving, shopping, and otherwise functioning without visible impairment — and showed no evidence of in-home care — Transamerica concluded that the claim was fraudulent and filed suit.
Transamerica surveilled ...
