A latest federal court docket resolution final week in Rosario v. Occidental Hearth and Casualty Firm of North Carolina 1 has reignited an necessary and sometimes misunderstood query relating to “supplemental claims.” Are supplemental flood claims below the Nationwide Flood Insurance coverage Program topic to the identical one-year statute of limitations as the unique declare? The ruling highlights the inflexible limitations of federal flood insurance coverage litigation whereas leaving open intriguing questions on how supplemental claims could be handled if correctly pled.
In Rosario, the plaintiff alleged that his insurer breached a Commonplace Flood Insurance coverage Coverage by failing to adequately pay for damages following Hurricane Ian. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the lawsuit was time-barred below the strict one-year statute of limitations imposed by 42 U.S.C. § 4072, triggered by partial denial letters issued in January and August of 2023. The court docket agreed, holding that the plaintiff’s declare was premature. It emphasised that the statute begins to run upon the date of a written denial or partial denial of the declare, even when the denial relies solely on an adjuster’s report and never on a sworn proof of loss.
This precept, firmly supported by case legislation within the Center District of Florida, leaves little room for plaintiffs to delay submitting go well with as soon as a denial letter has been issued. I wrote about this final month in Partial Denials Begin Statute of Limitations Time Clock in Nationwide Flood Claims.
The second important level within the court docket’s ruling pertains to its refusal to think about arguments about supplemental claims and new damages not addressed within the unique denials. The policyholder argued that his extra submissions, made after the preliminary denial letters, ought to be seen as separate supplemental claims not topic to the identical statute of limitations clock. The court docket declined to rule on that challenge. It discovered that the grievance itself didn’t allege any details about these supposed supplemental claims, the timing of their submission, or whether or not they constituted a definite loss. As a result of a court docket’s evaluation on the movement to dismiss stage is confined to the 4 corners of the grievance, this omission left the difficulty unresolved.
That is the place the case turns into notably compelling. The court docket dismissed the grievance with out prejudice and allowed the plaintiff fourteen days to amend. This leaves the door open for the plaintiff to reassert his claims with extra specificity, doubtlessly distinguishing supplemental losses as separate from these addressed within the unique denials. It additionally raises the broader query of how courts ought to deal with supplemental claims below the NFIP framework, particularly when new injury is found, or extra documentation is submitted months after the insurer’s preliminary dedication.
The massive procedural drawback on supplemental claims aside from the substitute value declare for advantages after restore or substitute is that more often than not, the proof of loss time interval has expired. There isn’t a federal flood rule that permits hidden and undetermined damages to be claimed after the proof of loss time durations lapse. My learn from the policyholder’s transient is that a lot of these “supplemental claims” are on the coronary heart of the policyholder’s argument.
So, again to the query. Are supplemental flood claims topic to the unique one-year statute of limitations from the date of a whole or partial denial? For now, the reply stays unsure, however I’m not holding my breath for a ruling serving to the policyholder.
What Rosario teaches us is that the reply could hinge much less on authorized concept and extra on pleading precision. With out factual element linking supplemental submissions to the timing and scope of the unique denial and avoiding the proof of loss time limitation, a court docket could by no means attain the deserves of whether or not a supplemental declare stands on an unbiased footing. It’s a reminder that in NFIP litigation, how and when a declare is framed could matter simply as a lot, if no more, than the substance of the declare.
Thought For The Day
“If you happen to’re early, you’re on time. If you happen to’re on time, you’re late. If you happen to’re late, don’t hassle exhibiting up.”
—Vince Lombardi
1 Rosario v. Occidental Hearth & Cas. Co. Of North Carolina, No. 2:24-cv-1135, 2025 WL 1425461 (M.D. Fla. Could 16, 2025).