Denial of Flood Claim Starts the Limitation Period Running
Post number 5324
See the video at https://rumble.com/v78t566-nfpa-strictly-enforces-conditions.html and at https://youtu.be/UyUPPtbZWOk, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Unlike Insurance Companies the NFPA is Enforced Strictly
Unlike Insurance Companies the NFPA is Enforced Strictly
In ZOZO Investments LLC, Bertie & Neeka LLC, Foreign Limited Liability Companies v. First Community Insurance Company, a Florida Corporation, No. 25-12492, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (April 15, 2026) Zozo Investments LLC and Bertie & Neeka LLC (“Zozo”) owned property in Fort Myers Beach, Florida, insured under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) through First Community Insurance Company (“First Community”) and appealed the dismissal of their suit when their claim was denied..
FACTS
After the property suffered flood damage from Hurricane Ian, Zozo filed a claim. First Community initially paid the claim but later stopped payment and withdrew the funds. On March 13, 2023, First Community sent a denial letter.
Zozo responded with a sworn proof of loss to appeal, but First Community issued a second denial on October 19, 2023. Zozo filed suit on October 4, 2024, less than a year after the second denial but more than a year after the first.
LAW
The central legal issue involves 42 U.S.C. § 4072, which requires that claimants challenge the denial of “any claims for proved and approved losses” within one year after notice of denial is mailed. The question is whether the loss must be “proved” by a sworn proof of loss before the denial, or if the claim is considered “proved” upon the initial denial regardless of such proof.
DISCUSSION & ANALYSIS
Congress enacted the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (NFIA), which authorized the establishment of the National Flood Insurance Program” (NFIP). The NFIP is managed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The NFIP provides Standard Flood Insurance Policies (SFIPs) to property owners. FEMA uses private insurers-like First Community-to issue SFIPs and to process SFIP claims on FEMA’s behalf, under terms and conditions controlled the NFIA and its corresponding regulations. The claims are paid out of the U.S. Treasury.
First Community moved to dismiss, arguing that more than year had elapsed since it mailed the first denial letter, so Zozo’s action was time-barred by Section 4072.
The NFIA grants FEMA the authority to adjust and disallow any claims for proved and approved losses covered by flood insurance. Further, upon the disallowance by the Administrator of any such claim, or upon the refusal of the claimant to accept the amount allowed upon any such claim, the claimant, within one year after the date of mailing of notice of disallowance or partial disallowance by the Administrator, may institute an action against the Administrator on such claim in the United States district court.
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals examined whether Zozo’s loss was “proved” for purposes of § 4072 at the time of the first denial letter, or only after Zozo submitted a sworn proof of loss. If the loss was “proved” at the first denial, the one-year statute of limitations began then, making Zozo’s suit time-barred.
If a sworn proof of loss was required to “prove” the loss, the clock started with the second denial, allowing Zozo’s suit to proceed. The district court concluded that a sworn proof of loss was not required for a loss to be “proved” under the statute, so the limitations period began with the first denial.
CONCLUSION
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that Zozo’s loss was “proved” without a sworn proof of loss, and the suit was therefore barred by the one-year limitations period in 42 U.S.C. § 4072.
The district court’s dismissal of the case with prejudice was AFFIRMED.
ZALMA OPINION
Normal insurance policies issued by corporate insurers have private limitation of action provisions that are applied with courtesy and warnings with courts giving empathy to those who fail to sue within the private limitation. Since the money to pay claims under an NFPA policy comes from the US Treasury US District Courts act differently, they interpret the private limitation of action strictly. As a result the plaintiff, who filed suit more than a year after denial, had their suit dismissed.
(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.
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 ...
Chutzpah is not Enough
Post 5397
Posted on July 20, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video and at https://lnkd.in/gNUs2XzT and at https://lnkd.in/g2MawyzX
Magistrate Issues a Search Warrant if there is a Fair Probability that Contraband or Evidence of a Crime will be Found in a Particular Place.
In United States Of America v. Frank Suess, et al., CRIMINAL No. 3:24-308, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (July 16, 2026) a federal grand jury indicted Frank Suess, Melissa Driscoll, and others in a 55-count health care fraud and anti-kickback prosecution arising from an alleged scheme involving medically unnecessary prescription “foot baths.”
As part of the investigation, the FBI obtained an August 19, 2022 warrant to search Driscoll’s Sterling Pharmacy Yahoo email account for emails from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020. Driscoll moved to suppress the resulting evidence, arguing that the warrant lacked probable cause, was overbroad, and rested on material misstatements and omissions.
LAW:
The ...
Fraud Shouldn’t Pay
Post 5396
See the video and at https://rumble.com/v7ctgmq-the-great-jewel-theft.html at https://youtu.be/aRbQ2sJfGwA
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.
The Insured purchased, for the first time in his life, a policy of Personal Articles Floater Insurance (PAF) scheduling $125,000 worth of ladies jewelry. He advised the insurer that the jewelry was always kept in a class E safe at his residence. He also told the insurer that he was employed full time as the owner of a gasoline service station and that he had never been canceled or suffered a previous loss.
One month after the policy was ...
Day Care Owner Loses Subsidies Because She Criticized State
Post 5421
Posted on August 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
First Amendment Right Will be Allowed to Go to Trial
In Betsey J. Grant v. Maine State Department Of Heath And Human Services, No. 1:25-cv-00490-JAW, United States District Court, D. Maine (August 6, 2026), Betsey J. Grant, a licensed childcare provider and operator of Tiny Tikes Daycare in Trenton, Maine, sued Maine DHHS and several employees after she publicly criticized DHHS before Maine’s Government Oversight Committee and alleged that officials retaliated against her.
She claimed DHHS imposed and extended a conditional license, published stigmatizing information, interfered with subsidies and program funding, removed her from a food program, rescinded an expansion grant, and used biased or falsified evidence in licensing proceedings. Following the March 10, 2023, GOC testimony, Ms. Grant alleges that foster children's subsidies (approximately $30,000) were withheld; she was removed from the ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units. After an underlying personal injury action was filed, Union Mutual determined that the property actually contained three apartment units and rescinded the policies on the ground that the defendants had made a material misrepresentation in the applications.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true facts been disclosed. To establish materiality as a matter of law, the insurer must submit documentation of its underwriting practices, such as manuals, guidelines, bulletins, or rules addressing similar risks.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
As a result, the...
