Can Disputes Related To Procurement Of Federal Flood Insurance Policies Be Litigated In State Court?

by Cozen O'Connor

It is well-established that claim processing and wrongful denial of coverage disputes involving federal flood insurance policies belong in federal court because they present substantial questions of federal law. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina recently applied this rule when it denied the insureds’ motion to remand a case to state court in Henderson v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 3:16-CV-419, 2016 WL 5415290 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 27, 2016). The Henderson Court, however, left open the question of whether disputes solely arising out the “procurement” of federal flood insurance policies likewise involve substantial questions of federal law or are matters of state law that can properly be determined by state courts. This is an issue on which courts around the country are divided.

The National Flood Insurance Program (“NFIP”) is a federal program pursuant to which persons can purchase Standard Flood Insurance Policies (“SFIPs”). SFIPs contain terms mandated by federal regulations. They can be purchased either directly from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) or from private insurance companies known as “Write Your Own” or “WYO” carriers that are authorized by federal regulation to sell and administer SFIPs under their own names. 

The insureds in Henderson approached Nationwide, a WYO carrier, about purchasing a flood insurance policy for a storage building located near a small creek in the back of their lot. Nationwide issued the insureds an SFIP for the building, which was subsequently renewed over several years. A flood then damaged the storage building and destroyed its contents. Nationwide denied the resulting insurance claims on the grounds that the building was not eligible for coverage because it was not permanently anchored to the ground and offered the insureds a premium refund. The insureds filed suit in North Carolina state court alleging breach of contract and unfair and deceptive trade practice claims based, in part, on allegations that Nationwide wrongfully denied the insureds’ claims. Nationwide removed the case to federal court on the grounds that the suit raised a federal question, and moved to dismiss the insureds’ claims against it. The insureds responded by filing a motion to remand the case back to state court.

In their motion to remand, the insureds “concede[d] that the storage building was not covered under the policy,” and argued that the case was not about wrongful denial of coverage as much as it was about alleged misrepresentation in the procurement of the policy because Nationwide had allegedly “sold them a flood insurance policy when it knew or should have known that the structure at issue was not eligible for coverage under the SFIP because it was not permanently anchored to the ground.” Id. at 4.

The insureds’ remand argument was based on the distinction made by some courts between claims involving claims handling allegations, which are well-recognized as being preempted by federal law, and claims arising out of policy procurement issues. Id. at 5. In Houck v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, for example, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina held that claims only involving policy procurement issues do not give rise to substantial questions of federal law and that such claims are matters of state law that can properly be decided by state courts. 194 F. Supp.2d 452, 461-62, 469 (D.S.C. 2002).

The Henderson Court recognized Houck’s holding, but denied the insureds’ motion to remand. It reasoned that its “focus for purposes of determining jurisdiction must be on the Complaint and not factual allegations in the [insureds’] Motion,” and that the complaint filed by the insureds contained allegations relating to claims handling, claim payment, and policy premiums, all of which implicate federal question jurisdiction. Therefore, the Houck rule did not apply to the case before it. Id. at 5. The court’s decision, however, suggests that it might follow Houck if presented with a case in the future with facts and allegations truly constituting “a simple procurement claim.” See id.

But Houck’s holding has been called into doubt by more recent cases decided after FEMA issued a WYO Program Bulletin in July 2009 stating in part:

FEMA previously understood and intended its regulations to preempt state law claims related to policy formation, renewal, and administration arising from allegations of WYO Company error as distinct from agent error (agent error is not subject to Federal Regulation . . .

. . . federal preemption should apply not just to claims handling activities, but also to policy administration. Specifically, preemption should apply to the nationally uniform and FEMA-mandated processes governing policy issuance and the administration of existing flood policies, including but not limited to rating, renewal, transfer, non-renewal, cancellation, or reformation. Insurance agent procurement disputes or any allegation of negligence on the part of the insurance agent related to procurement are not subject to preemption.

Davis v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 783 F. Supp.2d 825, 833 (E.D. Va. 2011) (citing WYO Program Bulletin No. W-09038).

For example, in Davis v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 783 F. Supp.2d 825 (E.D. Va. 2011), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia concluded “that federal law preempts state law not only with respect to policy interpretation and claims handling under the NFIP, but also with respect to policy issuance and administration,” including procurement-based claims such as the insurer purportedly selling the insured a more expensive policy than was necessary – which are identical to the procurement-based allegations that the Houck Court had previously held were matters of state law. Compare Davis at 831-832; with Hauck at 469.

Therefore, it is unclear based on Henderson whether North Carolina courts will follow the dichotomy between claims handling and policy procurement issues that the South Carolina federal court recognized in Hauck, or whether North Carolina’s courts will reject that dichotomy as did the Virginia federal court in Davis, when they are actually required to decide the issue. Indeed, despite the issuance of the July 2009 WYO Program Bulletin, courts around the country remain divided on whether procurement-based claims are preempted by federal law, or are properly considered matters of state law that can be determined by state courts, at least when they are not accompanied by other, independent questions of federal law. See, e.g., M & K Restaurant LLC v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., 29 F. Supp.3d 1204, 1226-30 (E.D. Ark. 2014) (noting that “[a]lthough some courts have decided this memorandum should be given deference such that procurement-based claims are preempted, other courts have addressed the memorandum and nevertheless concluded that procurement-based claims are not preempted” in finding that procurement-based state law claims are not preempted by federal law).

As such, it is clear that claims handling and wrongful denial of coverage cases relating to federal flood insurance policies belong in federal, not state, court. However, courts are divided on whether a simple procurement-based claim involving NFIP policies can proceed in state court under state law or is also preempted by federal law. The answer in any given case likely depends on which jurisdiction’s precedent applies, or, in the absence of any controlling precedent, on the particular nature of the purportedly procurement-based issue before the court.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Cozen O'Connor | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Cozen O'Connor

Cozen O'Connor on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.