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.
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 ...
A Proposed Amended Complaint That Includes New Factual Allegations to Remedy Pleading Deficiencies
Posted on November 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
After Dismissal Fraud Victim May Amend Complaint After Dismissal
Post 4580
If A Proposed Amendment Is Not Clearly Futile, Then Denial Of Leave To Amend Is Improper
In John Hancock Life & Health Insurance Company v. Caring Connections LLC, Arthur Feldheim, and Blime a/k/a Vera Feldheim, Civ. No. 25-7574 (MAS)(JBD), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (November 6, 2026) John Hancock sued Caring Connections LLC, Arthur Feldheim, and Blime a/k/a Vera Feldheim on June 5, 2025, asserting thirteen claims, including fraud, breach of contract, and aiding and abetting fraud.
On March 26, 2026, this Court entered an order granting Caring Connections’ motion to dismiss and granting in part and denying in part the Feldheims’ motion to dismiss. The dismissed claims were dismissed without prejudice, and John Hancock timely sought leave to amend.
They also argued that the New ...
Is Exhaustion Required to Seek Declaratory Relief From an Excess Insurer?
Post 4578
Posted on November 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Fox Paine & Company, LLC, et al. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company et al., S287404, 593 P.3d 832, 593 P.3d 838, 346 Cal.Rptr.3d 541, Supreme Court of California, (July 27, 2026) the Supreme Court noted that Insurance is sometimes procured in a series of layers, with an insured acquiring a primary insurance policy that provides an initial layer of coverage for loss or liability and an excess insurance policy or policies that provide additional coverage in the event the underlying coverage is exhausted. Usually, the first layer of coverage must be exhausted before the excess layers are available to the insured.
Exhaustion
Fox and Paine’s investment-firm dispute generated extensive litigation and competing insurance claims. Their insurance tower consisted of a $10 million primary policy and four $10 million excess layers.
The Fox Parties alleged that insurers paid their rivals, withheld information,...
Payment of Fines & Completion of Probation Reinstates Right to Vote
Post 4576
Posted on November 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
To Restore Voting Rights The Felon Must Pay Fines of $546.00
In Florida Supreme Court Mediator Ethics Advisory Committee, ETH F-26-377, No. F-26-377 (October 29, 2026) citizen unnamed and to Ron Desantis Governor, Cord Byrd the Secretary of State Florida Division of Elections provided an advisory opinion to a convicted felon about his right to vote:
To: [redacted] We received your request for an advisory opinion. You indicate that you have one or more felony convictions and request whether you are eligible to vote, including whether you have any outstanding legal financial obligations under section 98.0751, Florida Statutes, and, if so, a statement of the amount that must be paid to make you eligible to vote, and an explanation of how the amount was calculated.
The Division hereby responds to your request pursuant to its legal authority under section 106.23(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida ...
