Four cases within the last couple of weeks demonstrate that most policyholders suing National Flood will likely lose on technical proof of loss or statute of limitations reasons rather than on the substance of the dispute. In Glass v. American Strategic, 1 the homeowners found out that the one-year clock to sue started with the very first partial denial letter they received, not when the insurer sent a later and more formal rejection. The court had no patience for the argument that subsequent letters somehow reset the deadline. The result? Time-barred and dismissed.
The Ghias, in their case against American Bankers, did not fare any better. They argued that the denial letter was not based on a sworn proof of loss and that FEMA bulletins about Hurricane Ian claims somehow required a different outcome. The court disagreed, pointing out that a denial is a denial, regardless of whether a proof of loss was in the file, and the bulletins regarding the adjusting procedure do not save a lawsuit filed too late. 2 They, too, were shown the door on statute of limitations grounds.
The Lees tried a different tack, filing a proof of loss for more damages more than a year after Hurricane Ian. Their insurer said it was too late, and the court agreed. 3 Efforts to claim waiver or estoppel against the government-backed National Flood Program ran into a wall of precedent. Courts have consistently held that unless FEMA itself issues a written waiver, the rules are ironclad. The Lees’ case drowned under the weight of strict compliance.
Finally, the Agostinos managed to keep their case alive a little longer against Monarch National. The insurer argued the case was late, but it relied on an affidavit outside the pleadings at the motion to dismiss stage. The court refused to go along, saying it could not decide timeliness from the face of the complaint alone. Still, the Agostinos lost their requests for attorney’s fees and a jury trial because NFIP cases do not allow either. 4 In other words, they are still in the game, but the playbook is limited. My view is that the Agostinos’ claim has a big hole that will sink their ability to collect anything.
Taken together, these cases show that the flood in court is often more treacherous than the flood in your home. Policyholders and their advocates need to understand that the NFIP is a creature of federal law, not common sense or equity. Miss a deadline, and the courts will not forgive you. File late proof of loss paperwork, and you are sunk. Expect the usual remedies of attorney’s fees or jury sympathy, and you will be sorely disappointed.
The lesson is simple when it comes to National Flood claims. Treat every denial letter as if it were a ticking clock, and get your proof of loss properly completed and filed on time, because the water in the courtroom rises even faster than the storm surge.
Thought For The Day
“The only thing worse than being on a sinking ship is being on one with relatives.”
—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 National Flood Ins. Co., No. 2:24-cv-216, 2025 WL Sept. 18, 2025).
4 Agostino v. Monarch National Ins. Co., 2:24-cv-957, 2025 WL 2770856 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 26, 2025).