Flood insurance regulated by the National Flood Insurance Program is different. Requirements for getting paid are strict and must be followed. Many inexperienced lawyers and public adjustments prepare these claims incorrectly and the result is that the policyholders do not get paid or paid as much as they otherwise deserve.
A case issued last week, Clark v. Wright National Flood Insurance Company 1 involved a situation where the policyholder provided evidence of loss to the undisputed amounts of a flood claim and evidence of loss. for disputed items. This is not the way to leave a flood insurance cover for loss. A flood protection for loss for all requested amounts must be submitted on a federal form, fully completed and signed. It should also have backup and documentation. We have discussed and warned of these requirements in:
In the reported decision, the federal judge hampered the policyholders and stated the following:
An NFIP participant cannot file a lawsuit seeking additional federal benefits under SFIP unless the participant can demonstrate prior compliance with all political requirements. "… If a flood loss to the insured property is to insure, he must meet several requirements before raising a lawsuit … First, the insured must provide a complete, proof of loss (POL) within 60 days of the loss" or within an extension approved by FEMA. "…
In addition, the evidence of loss must contain documents supporting the requested amount, including" [s] specifications of damaged buildings and detailed repair estimates "as well as" inventory of damaged property as shows the amount, description, actual cash value and amount of loss. "… These are strict requirements. An insured's failure to provide a complete, sworn proof of loss statement with supporting documentation" frees the federal insurer's obligation to pay what might otherwise have been a valid requirement ".
… indicates the size of the invoice and the bif Includes an Adjuster The list of contents losses does not state the amount required by the policy. The applicants did not seek payment for any part of the items on the table of contents in evidence of loss, and they did not sign and swear the amount in the appraiser's estimate, which would be required by SFIP to claim the losses. The proof of loss does not even claim $ 32,310 from the invoice, it just says this is the flood-related part of the bill. Since the December 2016 evidence of loss did not meet the requirements of SFIP, Wright is excused from paying the claimant's claim. (Remarks omitted)
The flood insurance application differs from almost all other forms of insurance. The law has been interpreted strictly against policyholders and demanding precision seems more important than the validity of the claim under current federal law.
The thought of the day
– it is someone who works for the federal government but does not need to perform the public service survey. "Ronald Reagan  Clark v. Wright National Flood Ins. Co., No. 18-4852 2019 WL 315099 (E.D. La. Jan 23, 2019).