A current courtroom determination in Sublett v. Westfield Insurance coverage Firm 1 reveals how even well-intentioned policyholders can lose a flood insurance coverage declare earlier than their lawsuit ever begins. This case isn’t just a couple of technical authorized loss. It’s a couple of household making an attempt to get well from flood injury to their house and discovering themselves out of choices, not as a result of they didn’t expertise actual hurt, however due to a sequence of procedural and strategic missteps which are sadly all too frequent in flood insurance coverage disputes. For insurance coverage declare professionals, public adjusters, and attorneys, the Sublett case reveals the crucial significance of understanding the distinctive authorized panorama of the Nationwide Flood Insurance coverage Program (NFIP) and following its guidelines with precision.
On the coronary heart of the case was a Customary Flood Insurance coverage Coverage (SFIP) issued by the NFIP and administered by a personal insurer performing as a federal agent. When the Subletts’ house in Kentucky was flooded on July 28, 2022, they promptly reported their loss. An impartial adjuster inspected the property and decided there was no injury to the primary dwelling space, solely to the basement. The flood adjuster ready a Proof of Loss (POL) for $6,189.05 and instructed that if the house owner disagreed with the estimate, she may submit her personal POL for a better quantity, supported by documentation. The policyholder hesitated to signal this preliminary POL, believing there could be structural injury the adjuster had not recognized. Finally, on September 21, inside the 60-day deadline to submit a federal proof of loss, she signed the adjuster’s POL, nonetheless uncertain whether or not it coated all of the injury.
This determination proved to be pivotal. Underneath the SFIP, a policyholder should submit a signed, sworn, and itemized POL inside 60 days of the loss in the event that they intend to assert greater than what the insurer gives. Except FEMA permits for an extension, the regulation doesn’t enable for flexibility or leniency on this level. When, almost a 12 months later, the policyholder submitted a supplemental injury estimate for greater than $53,000 as a part of her lawsuit, the courtroom dominated that the declare was barred as a result of the brand new estimate was by no means submitted as a compliant POL. The courtroom emphasised that the NFIP’s proof of loss necessities are to be strictly enforced. There isn’t any allowance for substantial compliance, no room for waiver by the insurer or its adjuster, and no risk of estoppel primarily based on deceptive steerage from an insurance coverage consultant. The one celebration that may waive the 60-day POL requirement is the Federal Insurance coverage Administrator, and there was no proof that such a waiver was requested or granted on this case.
I’ve mentioned why the Nationwide Flood Insurance coverage Program wants reform relating to these overly restrictive proof of loss necessities in NFIP Escapes Cost with Type Over Substance Guidelines: The Want for Reform of the Nationwide Flood Insurance coverage Program.
What makes the Sublett determination much more instructive is that even when a correct POL had been submitted on time, the policyholder nonetheless confronted severe obstacles due to the content material of her personal engineering report. The house owner employed Yeiser Structural to judge potential structural injury. Whereas the report famous cracking finishes and sloping flooring, it did not causally hyperlink these points on to the flood. As a substitute, the engineer attributed the issues to long-term deterioration, moisture, and getting old. He didn’t relate the injury to the particular flood occasion. Within the eyes of the courtroom, that made all of the distinction. NFIP insurance policies cowl solely direct bodily loss brought on by flooding. Harm attributed to normal put on, poor upkeep, or unrelated moisture issues is just not coated. As a result of the report by no means definitively tied the structural points to the July 28 flood, it failed to offer the required proof of causation to help the declare, even when a correct POL had been filed.
One other key component of the case and lesson for policyholders struggling flood injury was the position of authorized counsel. The plaintiff’s legal professional argued the case as if it had been ruled by Kentucky regulation, citing state statutes on unfair claims practices, emotional misery, and normal rules of excellent religion and truthful dealing. Nonetheless, NFIP insurance policies are creatures of federal regulation. The Nationwide Flood Insurance coverage Act governs this system, and courts throughout the nation have clarified that state regulation has no place in resolving disputes below these federally backed insurance policies. The courtroom in Sublett identified that the plaintiff’s filings had been largely devoid of authorized citations to the proper physique of regulation and expressed concern that the legal professional appeared unaware of the unique software of federal regulation in NFIP disputes.
This isn’t to criticize the legal professional personally, however slightly to focus on a really actual drawback within the authorized neighborhood. NFIP circumstances should not like different insurance coverage disputes. They require a special set of expertise, data, and a focus to element. The foundations are inflexible, the timeframes unforgiving, and the doctrines of waiver, estoppel, and substantial compliance—frequent lifelines in state regulation insurance coverage litigation—are nonexistent. Attorneys who enterprise into this area should both already possess or shortly perceive how the NFIP works. Failing to take action does a disservice to the shoppers they characterize, who might unknowingly lose their potential to get well what they consider is rightfully theirs.
For policyholders, the takeaways from this case are clear. First, when a flood damages your property and also you carry an SFIP, you have to act shortly and observe FEMA’s guidelines precisely. That features submitting a signed and sworn Proof of Loss inside 60 days of the occasion for the complete quantity of your declare, not simply the quantity the insurer gives. For those who’re uncertain of the extent of your injury, you have to nonetheless submit your personal estimate and documentation. Counting on what a FEMA adjuster tells you or assuming the method is versatile will solely set you up for disappointment.
Second, rent technical and authorized professionals who perceive flood claims. Your engineer should be able to clearly attributing injury to the flood occasion, not simply describing signs or attainable causes. Your legal professional should perceive the distinctive physique of federal regulation that governs flood insurance coverage claims, or no less than be prepared to analysis it intimately earlier than submitting swimsuit.
The Sublett case is one other precious case offering precious insights for everybody concerned with flood claims. It reveals that even when injury is actual, and the necessity for restoration is urgent, failing to observe the strict guidelines laid out by the NFIP will stop restoration. It reminds all of us, policyholders, public adjusters, attorneys, estimators, and engineers, that when coping with federally funded insurance coverage packages, there is no such thing as a substitute for precision and skilled professionalism. In the end, the easiest way professionals will help these policyholders we serve is to make sure they by no means must study these classes the arduous method. Policyholders ought to at all times take into account hiring skilled professionals for his or her flood claims.
For readers wanting a better understanding of this matter, I recommend studying Federal Flood Insurance coverage: Strict Compliance with Proof of Loss Necessities is Important, and Nationwide Flood Claims Have a One-12 months Statute of Limitations.
Thought For The Day
“Flip your wounds into knowledge.”
— Oprah Winfrey
1 Sublett v. Westfield Ins. Co.No. 7:23-cv-65, 2025 WL 1461817 (E.D. Ky. Might 21, 2025).
