4 circumstances inside the final couple of weeks display that the majority policyholders suing Nationwide Flood will possible lose on technical proof of loss or statute of limitations causes reasonably than on the substance of the dispute. In Glass v. American Strategic, 1 the owners came upon that the one-year clock to sue began with the very first partial denial letter they obtained, not when the insurer despatched a later and extra formal rejection. The court docket had no persistence for the argument that subsequent letters someway reset the deadline. The end result? Time-barred and dismissed.
The Ghias, of their case in opposition to American Bankers, didn’t fare any higher. They argued that the denial letter was not based mostly on a sworn proof of loss and that FEMA bulletins about Hurricane Ian claims someway required a distinct consequence. The court docket disagreed, declaring {that a} denial is a denial, no matter whether or not a proof of loss was within the file, and the bulletins concerning the adjusting process don’t save a lawsuit filed too late. 2 They, too, have been proven the door on statute of limitations grounds.
The Lees tried a distinct tack, submitting a proof of loss for extra damages greater than a yr after Hurricane Ian. Their insurer mentioned it was too late, and the court docket agreed. 3 Efforts to say waiver or estoppel in opposition to the government-backed Nationwide Flood Program ran right into a wall of precedent. Courts have constantly held that until FEMA itself points a written waiver, the principles are ironclad. The Lees’ case drowned underneath the load of strict compliance.
Lastly, the Agostinos managed to maintain their case alive a little bit longer in opposition to Monarch Nationwide. The insurer argued the case was late, nevertheless it relied on an affidavit outdoors the pleadings on the movement to dismiss stage. The court docket refused to go alongside, saying it couldn’t determine timeliness from the face of the criticism alone. Nonetheless, the Agostinos misplaced their requests for lawyer’s charges and a jury trial as a result of NFIP circumstances don’t enable both. 4 In different phrases, they’re nonetheless within the sport, however the playbook is proscribed. My view is that the Agostinos’ declare has an enormous gap that may sink their means to gather something.
Taken collectively, these circumstances present that the flood in court docket is usually extra treacherous than the flood in your house. Policyholders and their advocates want to know that the NFIP is a creature of federal regulation, not widespread sense or fairness. Miss a deadline, and the courts won’t forgive you. File late proof of loss paperwork, and you’re sunk. Anticipate the standard cures of lawyer’s charges or jury sympathy, and you may be sorely disenchanted.
The lesson is easy in terms of Nationwide Flood claims. Deal with each denial letter as if it have been a ticking clock, and get your proof of loss correctly accomplished and filed on time, as a result of the water within the courtroom rises even quicker than the storm surge.
Thought For The Day
“The one factor worse than being on a sinking ship is being on one with family.”
—P.G. Wodehouse
1 Glass v. American Strategic Ins. Corp., No. 2:25-cv-443, 2025 WL 2676077 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 18, 2025).
2 Ghai v. American Bankers Ins. Co. of Florida, No. 2:24-cv-567, 2025 WL 2676373 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 18, 2025).
3 Lee v. Wright Nationwide Flood Ins. Co., No. 2:24-cv-216, 2025 WL Sept. 18, 2025).
4 Agostino v. Monarch Nationwide Ins. Co., 2:24-cv-957, 2025 WL 2770856 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 26, 2025).
