Flood Policy Limitation of Action Provision Destroys Bad Faith Suit
Post number 5376
Flood Policy Limitation of Action Provision Followed Strictly
Posted on June 19, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Wayne Gularte, et al. v. Wright National Flood Insurance Company, No. 5:26-cv-01426-PCP, United States District Court, N.D. California (June 15, 2026) Wayne and Doris Gularte alleged that their property sustained flood damage between January 17 and March 23, 2023. They submitted claims to Wright National Flood Insurance Company, which paid part of the claim but denied additional claimed structural losses by email on June 18, 2023.
The Gularte plaintiffs filed suit in state court on December 30, 2025, seeking $12,500 for unpaid structural losses. Wright removed the action to federal court and moved to dismiss.
LAW:
A complaint in Federal Court must plead enough facts to state a plausible claim for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), and dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate when the complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory or sufficient supporting facts.
Under the National Flood Insurance Program and Standard Flood Insurance Policies, an insured must sue within one year after the insurer mails notice of disallowance.
DISCUSSION:
Wright showed that it issued the relevant flood policy through the NFIP and submitted the policy terms and denial letter with its motion. Because the complaint challenged the denial of insurance benefits, the court found those documents incorporated by reference and considered them without converting the motion into one for summary judgment.
“Only when the plaintiff pleads itself out of court—that is, admits all the ingredients of an impenetrable defense—may a complaint that otherwise states a claim be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).” Durnford v. MusclePharm Corp., 907 F.3d 595, 604 (9th Cir. 2018).
ANALYSIS:
The court concluded that the claim was untimely. Wright denied the disputed portion of the claim on June 18, 2023, but plaintiffs did not file suit until December 30, 2025, more than one year after the denial. Because the incorporated materials made the limitations bar apparent, plaintiffs had pleaded themselves outside the available period for suit.
CONCLUSION:
The court granted Wright National Flood Insurance Company’s motion to dismiss because the insureds filed suit well outside the one-year limitations period governing SFIP claim disputes. When a motion to dismiss is based on the running of the statute of limitations, it can be granted only if the assertions of the complaint, read with the required liberality, would not permit the plaintiff to prove that the statute was tolled or that the claims were timely.
ANALYSIS
Wright participated in the United States Government’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which allows it to issue Standard Flood Insurance Policies (SFIPs) on behalf of the federal government. It submits several exhibits along with its motion, including a document confirming coverage of plaintiffs’ property under the NFIP, the terms of an SFIP, and a copy of the denial letter sent to plaintiffs. Because plaintiffs’ complaint alleges an unlawful denial of their insurance claim, it necessarily relies on the terms of the policy and the insurer’s denial letter.
If an insurer denies a claim, SFIP policyholders must file any action within one year of the mailing of the notice of disallowance. The record before the Court demonstrated that plaintiffs filed the action over a year and a half after their claim was denied. Since the complaint includes no allegations from which the Court could conclude that plaintiffs were excused from filing their lawsuit within one year of the denial. Their claim was, therefore,time-barred.
The USDC granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
ZALMA OPINION
Every insurance policy insuring against the risk of loss of real or personal property or damage caused by flood, contain a private limitation of action provision. NFPA policies contain a one-year private limitation of action from the date of denial. Gularte, by its complaint, filed the action more than one year after the denial and established the suit was time barred.
(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://Cwww.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
To Prove Fraud Material False Statements Must be Proved
Post number 5389
Posted on July 8, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video at and at
Materiality Must Be Judged Objectively.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended a tour van driver and related defendants in an underlying auto-collision action brought by Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC after a low-speed collision involving Silver Bird’s McLaren and a tour van.
Silver Bird alleged the McLaren was making a legal turn and sought damages including repair costs, loss of use, and diminution in value. The defendants’ insurer later became insolvent, and CIGA took over the defense and ultimately paid $25,000 to settle the underlying action.
After settlement, Heath & Yuen filed a ...
To Prove Fraud Material False Statements Must be Proved
Post number 5389
Posted on July 8, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video at and at
Materiality Must Be Judged Objectively.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended a tour van driver and related defendants in an underlying auto-collision action brought by Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC after a low-speed collision involving Silver Bird’s McLaren and a tour van.
Silver Bird alleged the McLaren was making a legal turn and sought damages including repair costs, loss of use, and diminution in value. The defendants’ insurer later became insolvent, and CIGA took over the defense and ultimately paid $25,000 to settle the underlying action.
After settlement, Heath & Yuen filed a ...
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 ...
Plaintiff Representing Herself Failed to Allege Jurisdiction
Adverse Rulings Alone Almost Never Establish Bias
Post number 5392
Posted on July 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Decheri Hafer v. Farmers Insurance Agency, No. 1:22-cv-0808 KES SKO, United States District Court, E.D. California (June 30, 2026) DeCheri Hafer, proceeding pro se, sued Farmers Insurance Agency alleging perjury, fraud, insurance fraud, and breach of contract.
After screening, the magistrate judge found the complaint deficient and allowed amendment. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint objecting to all magistrate judges, while defendant moved to dismiss.
The magistrate judge recommended dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy was wholly unsubstantiated. Plaintiff did not object and instead sought default. The district court adopted the recommendation, dismissed the action without prejudice, denied default, entered judgment, and closed the case.
More than three years later, Plaintiff moved under Rule 60(b)(4) ...
To Prove Fraud Material False Statements Must be Proved
Post number 5389
Posted on July 8, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video at and at
Materiality Must Be Judged Objectively.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended a tour van driver and related defendants in an underlying auto-collision action brought by Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC after a low-speed collision involving Silver Bird’s McLaren and a tour van.
Silver Bird alleged the McLaren was making a legal turn and sought damages including repair costs, loss of use, and diminution in value. The defendants’ insurer later became insolvent, and CIGA took over the defense and ultimately paid $25,000 to settle the underlying action.
After settlement, Heath & Yuen filed a ...
Coverage for Damage to Vacant Dwelling Limited
Post number 5388
Vandalism Damage to Vacant Dwelling Excluded
Posted on July 7, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Tyrone Williamson v. Farmers Insurance Co., 2026-Ohio-2530, C. A. No. 30717, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District, Montgomery (July 2, 2026) Tyrone Williamson owned a duplex in Dayton, Ohio that he rented as two separate units. While the units were unoccupied by tenants, break-ins occurred in February, March, and April 2024, causing damage to doors, windows, walls, plumbing, flooring, fencing, lighting, a ceiling fan, grass, and other parts of the property, and resulting in the theft of items including tools, generators, a power washer, an air-conditioning unit, car wheels, and a radio.
Farmers Insurance paid approximately $17,000 for some damage from the first break-in but denied other claimed losses, including additional property damage, stolen personal property, and lost rent.
The trial court granted summary judgment to Farmers Insurance on Williamson’s ...
