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.
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, ...
