Public adjusters and policyholders should stay vigilant and exact when coping with federal flood insurance coverage claims below the Nationwide Flood Insurance coverage Program (NFIP). A current determination in Blocdahl Leasing, LLC v. American Strategic Insurance coverage Company 1 highlights a vital pitfall: Failure to submit a signed proof of loss can utterly bar a declare for extra advantages.
This case arose from flood harm brought on by Hurricane Ian. Regardless of receiving over $94,000 in funds based mostly on the insurer’s adjuster reviews, the plaintiff, Blocdahl Leasing, was dissatisfied and sought extra advantages exceeding the coverage limits. Nevertheless, the court docket granted abstract judgment in favor of the flood insurer as a result of Blocdahl Leasing didn’t submit a signed proof of loss for the contested quantities.
Below the Customary Flood Insurance coverage Coverage (SFIP), submitting a signed and sworn proof of loss is not only a formality—it’s a strict prerequisite to get better extra insurance coverage advantages. Whereas FEMA has issued bulletins permitting insurers to pay claims based mostly on adjusters’ reviews with out a signed proof of loss, this leniency doesn’t prolong to contested claims. If a policyholder disagrees with the insurer’s adjuster report, they need to submit a signed proof of loss together with supporting documentation. With out this, the declare will fail.
The court docket acknowledged:
The proof of loss necessities have to be strictly construed….‘[N]ot even the temptations of a tough case ought to trigger courts to learn the necessities of a federal insurance coverage contract with ‘charitable laxity.’
The Blocdahl determination underscores two essential factors. First, public adjusters ought to educate their purchasers on the significance of finishing and signing proofs of loss precisely and on time. Even when the insurer seems prepared to proceed with out a signed proof of loss, policyholders should comply strictly with the SFIP necessities for contested claims. Second, all deadlines have to be strictly noticed. FEMA typically extends these deadlines, however this leniency doesn’t remove the necessity for on-time signed documentation.
This case ought to function a wake-up name for policyholders and public adjusters with Hurricane Helene and Milton claims. Federal courts constantly emphasize the significance of adhering to the technical necessities of the SFIP. Because the court docket in Blocdahl famous, federal flood insurance coverage contracts aren’t topic to “charitable laxity.” A seemingly minor oversight, reminiscent of failing to signal a proof of loss, can lead to a whole denial of extra advantages—even when the damages are substantial and well-documented.
Policyholders going through flood-related losses ought to work intently with educated public adjusters and authorized counsel to make sure compliance with all NFIP necessities. Correctly making ready, signing, and submitting proofs of loss throughout the prescribed timelines will not be elective. It’s a essential step in defending your rights below a flood insurance coverage coverage.
For public adjusters, this case reaffirms the worth of meticulous record-keeping, thorough shopper communication, and adherence to procedural necessities. Making certain that your purchasers meet these exacting requirements could make the distinction between a profitable restoration and a irritating denial.
The federal flood proofs of loss for Hurricanes Helene and Milton have been prolonged to 180 days from these storms, as famous in Nationwide Flood Proofs of Loss for Hurricanes Helene and Milton Prolonged to 180 Days. For these with federal flood claims from Hurricanes Helene or Milton, I’d counsel you additionally learn Federal Flood Proofs of Loss Due on Friday and a Flood Case Displaying How Unfair it Can Be to Combat Nationwide Flood in Court docket, and A Warning Relating to Federal Flood Proofs Of Loss.
Thought For The Day
“Self-discipline is the bridge between objectives and accomplishment.”
—Jim Rohn
1 Blocdahl Leasing v. American Strategic Ins. Corp., No. 2:23-cv-776, 2024 WL 5202783 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 23, 2024).
