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.
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 ...
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
Posted on June 15, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 12
June 15, 2026
Post number 5372
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
Go to Jail, Do Not Pass Go
Arsonist Who Tried to Defraud Insurer Failed to Avoid Jail
Arson is a Violent and Dangerous Crime Deserving Serious Punishment
The People of the State of New York v. Zef Gjurashaj, 2026 NY Slip Op 03320, No. 2023-03675, Ind. No. 70463/21, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (May 27, 2026) the defendant owned a restaurant that was destroyed by fire on September 6, 2017. Prosecutors alleged that he and a codefendant conspired to intentionally set the fire in order ...
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
Posted on June 15, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 12
June 15, 2026
Post number 5372
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
Go to Jail, Do Not Pass Go
Arsonist Who Tried to Defraud Insurer Failed to Avoid Jail
Arson is a Violent and Dangerous Crime Deserving Serious Punishment
The People of the State of New York v. Zef Gjurashaj, 2026 NY Slip Op 03320, No. 2023-03675, Ind. No. 70463/21, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (May 27, 2026) the defendant owned a restaurant that was destroyed by fire on September 6, 2017. Prosecutors alleged that he and a codefendant conspired to intentionally set the fire in order ...
Applicant for Insurance is Obligated to Advise Insurer in Material Changes After Application Was Signed
Post number 5371
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/physicians-malpractice-insurance-available-when-zalma-esq-cfe-fmpxc and https://zalma.com/blog.
Doctor Criminally Charged and License Suspended After Application Signed had Policy Rescinded for Failure to Advise Insurer of Change
In Xiang (Sean) Yuan, M.D. v. Positive Physicians Insurance Company, No. 1821 EDA 2025, No. J-A08033-26, Superior Court of Pennsylvania (May 29, 2026) Dr. Xiang (Sean) Yuan, a physician, sought renewal of his professional liability insurance policy with Positive Physicians Insurance Company (PPIC) in June 2020 and again in May 2021.
In the June 2020 renewal application, he answered “no” to questions asking whether he knew of any circumstances that might lead to a professional liability claim.
Two days after signing the 2020 renewal application, Dr. Yuan was charged with 36 criminal offenses, and...
