Case ID: f-appx_615/html/0696-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FETCH, NYC INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO., Defendant-Appellee, Kevin Schaeffer, Defendant.
    
    No. 14-3431-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Sept. 10, 2015.
    Steven G. Fauth, Steven G. Fauth, LLC, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Joseph J. Aguda, Jr., and Michael D. Breinin (on the brief), Nelsen, Carter & Treas L.L.C., Metairie, LA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Present: PETER W. HALL, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, and RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the caption of this case as set forth above.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

. Fetch, NYC Inc. (“Fetch”) appeals from an August 5, 2014 decision and order entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Forrest, J.) granting Defendant Allstate Insurance Co.’s (“Allstate”) motion for summary judgment. We review de novo a decision by the district court to grant summary judgment to a defendant on the basis that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact. Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003). This Court must “construe all evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, drawing all inferences and resolving all ambiguities in its favor.” Dickerson v. Napolitano, 604 F.3d 732, 740 (2d Cir.2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal.

We agree with Judge Forrest’s opinion below that there was no genuine dispute as to whether Fetch’s Standard Flood Insurance Policy (“SFIP”) was a “duplicate” within the meaning of the SFIP. 44 C.F.R. Pt. 61, App. A(l) (2015). Furthermore, without deciding whether the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Manual (“FIM”) has been incorporated by reference into the National Flood Insurance Program’s regulations at 44 C.F.R. § 62.23(i)(l), we recognize it is entitled to deference. See Union Carbide Corp. & Subsidiaries v. C.I.R., 697 F.3d 104, 109 (2d Cir.2012) (“We ordinarily give deference to an agency’s interpretation of its own ambiguous regulations_”). We note that Fetch’s SFIP was inconsistent with FIM Section IX(F)(2), as it did not include the building owner and tenant as joint policyholders in a building coverage policy. FEMA, National Flood Insurance ProgRam, Flood Insurance Manual GR 13 (Oct. 1, 2013). Consequently, Allstate did not breach the SFIP when rejecting Fetch’s claim. The district court properly granted Allstate’s motion for summary judgment.

We have considered Fetch’s remaining arguments and find that they are without merit. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.