2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

4-15-2005 

# S uop ys v . O m ah a P r op & C slt y

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al
D ock e t N o . 04-1996

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" S uop ys v . Om ah a P r op & C slt y " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 1274. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1274PREC EDENTIAL
U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

No. 04-1996

AL L ENB . SU OPY S, Appellant

v.
OMAHA PROPERTY & CASUAL TY

On Appea l from the United States District Court for the D istrict of NewJ erse y (D.C. No. 02-c v-05743) District J udg e: Honora

ble Gar rett E. B rown, Jr.

Argued January

25, 2005 Be fore : SC I RI CA, Chief Judge , R E N D E LL, and F I SHER, Circuit Judges

. (F iled April 15, 2005)

Kenne th P. W estreic h (Argued) Swain & Westre ich 3 1 0 0 Hi gh wa y

1 3 8 , Bu i l d i n g 2 Wall, NJ 07719 Attorney for Appellant2 Ger ald J . Nielsen (A rgued) 3838 North Causew ay

Boule vard, Suite 2850 Metairie, LA 70002 Attorney for Appellee

OPI NI ONOF TH E CO UR T

FI SHER, Circuit Judge

. Allen B

. S uopy s (“Suopy s”) a ppeals fr om an orde r of the United States Dis t ri ct Court for the D istrict of NewJ erse y g ranting
summa ry jud g me nt i n f

avo r o f O maha

Pr op e rt y & Ca su a lty (“O maha” ). Suopy s claims that he sustained pr operty losses that are
c ov e re d b y

the Stand ard

F lood I ns uranc e Pol ic y

(“ SF I P” ) i ssu e d to him by Omaha in its ca

pacity as a “Write-Your- Own” Program Company participan t in the National F lood I nsuranc e Prog ram ( “ N F I P” )

. T h is a

p p e a l p r e s e n ts th e qu e s ti o n o f w h e th e r under the SFI P, the 60-day

period fo r filing proof of loss, including the f

iling of an a djuster’s re port in lieu of proof of loss, is waivable a

bsent the consent of the Fe dera l Emerg ency Manag ement Ag ency

(“F EMA”)

. The District Court dete rm ined that Suopy s’s claim wa s barr ed for failure to timely

submit proof of loss or, alter n at i v el y , found no
cover ag e for

the damag e at i s s u e. We will affir m on the former g round and, in doingso, make e x plicit that the 60-day period for filing pr oof of loss must be strictly construed.

I.
Th e Natio na l F loo d Ins ur anc e Ac t o f 1968 , 4 2 U .S. C. §§ 4001-4129, established the NFI P. The NF I P is underwritten by the3 United St a te s T r e a s ur

y in o r d e r to p r o v id e f

lo o d in s ur an c e b e low actua rial rates. 42 U.S.C. § 4017 (2003); se e als o Van Ho lt v. Lib e rty M u tu al , 1 63 F .3 d 1 61 , 1 54 n. 2 ( 3d Cir . 1 99 8) . T he NF I P is admin is te r e d

b y F E M A an d

th e F e d e r a l I

n s ur an c e M it ig a ti on Ad min istratio n ( ‘F I MA ” ). 42 U.S.C. § 40 11 (2 00 3) ; 44 C.F .R. §§ 59.1-77.2 (2003)

. The SFI P is codified at 44 C.F.R. Pt. 61, App. A ( 2003) and is incorporated into the Code of Feder al R egulations by ref ere nce at 44 C.F.R. § 61.13(a) (2003). The SFI P a nd all disputes arising from the handling of any

claim under

the policy

are g overne d by

the flood insurance regulations promulgated by FEMA, the National F lood I nsuranc e Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4001-4129, and fe dera l common law. 44 C

. F. R

. P t

. 6 1, App. A(1) , Art. 11 (2000) / Art. I X (2003). FEMA pr ovides for marketing and claims adjustment of the SFI P by Wri te Yo ur Own (“ WYO ” ) Comp anie s, wh o ope ra te a s f isc a l a g e nts of the Un ite d State s. 44 C.F .R. §§ 61 .1 3( f) , 62 .2 3 ( 20 03 ); 42 U. S.C. § 4071(a) (1) (2003) (authorizi ng FEMA dir ector to utili ze insurance companies a s fiscal a g ents of the United States)

. Th e WYO Com

pa nies are bo un d to a dju st c la ims in
a c c or da nc e wi th t

he te rm s o f t

he S FI P . T he SF I P r e qu ir e s th a t in adjusting c laims, the WYO Compa n y apply its own company standards guided b y NFI P Cl aims manuals issued by FEMA. 44 C.F.R. § 62.23(i)(1) (2003). WYO car riers ma y not alter, amend, or waive a ny provision or condition of the SFI P absent express written consent from the Fe dera l I nsuranc e Administrator. 44 C.F.R. Pt. 61, Ap p. (A )(1 ), Ar

t. 9 (D ) ( 20 00 ) /

Ar t. V I I (D ) ( 20 03 ); 44 C.F .R. § 61.13(d) ( 2003).
The SFI P requires that an insured c laiming damag es for flood loss provide the WYO ca

rrier with proof of loss within 60 day s from4 th e d a t e o f

t h e a l l e g e d

l o s s
. 4 4 C

. F

. R

. P t

. 6 1 App . A( 1 ) , A rt

. 9 ( J) (2000) / VI I (J) (2003).

II.
Suo py s se e ks fl oo d in sura nc e c ov e ra g e fo r d ama g e to h is For ked River, New Jersey

summer home sustained on or about J une 21, 2 0 0 1 , d

u e to T r o p ic a l S to r

m A ll is o n
. Su o p y s ti me ly notified Om aha of the pr op e rt

y dama g e . B y e arl y July

20 01 , O maha ’s c la ims adjuster inspec ted t h e prope rty and obser

ved dama g e including moisture in the house, water a round the doors an d carpet edg es and upheava l of the concr ete slab on which the house wa s situated. The adjuster indicated t h at t he cla im for $12,962.44 (the a mount after depre c iati o n an d d e d

u c ti b le s ) s h o u ld b e p a id b y O ma h a w it h in two months of its re ceipt. Having not r ece ived pay ment b y S ep tember 2001, Suopy s inquired of the adjuster as to the status of his claim and
wa s i n fo rm edb y

th e a d j u s t er th at p ay m en two u l d

b e f o rt h co m i n g.
Om ah a n otified Suopy s by letter dated September

27, 2001, that his claim remaine d open beyond the 60-da y period for

submitt ing
a pr oo f o f los s and ind ic a te d th a t it c ou ld e ith e r c los e the c la ims fi le wi tho ut p ay

me nt, or c los e it w itha po ssi ble pa y me nt i f a pr oo f o f l os s w a s r e c e i v e d

b y O c t o b e r

5 , 2 0 0 1

. O m ah a

r e qu e s t e d

th a tS u o p ys c on ta c t th e a dju ste r t o d e te rm ine his re sp on se g ive n that O maha did
no t h av e a

u th o r it y un d e r th e SF I P to a c t o n an y r e qu e s t for a n extension of tim e to file a p ro o f of loss. Om aha ’s le tte r a lso
c o n t a i n e d a r e s e r v a t i o no f a l l r i g h t s un d e r

th e p o l i c y.
On Octobe r 2, 2001, Suop y s p ro v ided the adjuster with a signe d and notar ized proof of loss and the National Flood Insuranc e Prog ram F inal Report (“ Adjuster’s Repor t”). Oma ha rec eived the pr oo f o f l os s and

Ad jus te r’ s Re po rt

on Oc tob e r 4 , 2 00 1. Sho rt ly there afte r, Omaha de termined that ther e wa s no SFI P covera g e for theThe re levant provisions of the SFI P reg ard i n g exclusions 1 fr om c ov e ra g e du e to “ e art h mo ve me nt” are a s f

oll ow s: We only provide c overa g e for direct physical loss by or from flood which mea

ns we do not cove r: B. L o s s e s f

r o m o t h e r

c a s u a lti e s, including loss caused by : 1

. Theft, fire, win d s to r m, w in d, explos ion, ear

thquake, l and sinkag e, landslide , d e s ta

b il iz a ti o n o r move ment of land re sulti n g from the
acc umulation of w ater

in sub-surfa ce land area s, g radua l erosion, or a ny other e arth moveme nt except s u ch mudslides ... or erosion as i s cover ed under the peril of

flood

. * * * 3. L and

su bs ide nc e ... unle ss, su

bje c t to additional deductibles a s provided for
a t Article 7 , (a) there is a g eneral and temporar y condition of flooding in the
are a , ( b) the fl oo din g is the pr oximate cause of t he land subsidence ... (c ) the land s ubsidence

... occur s no later tha n 72 hours af

ter the flood

has re ceded, and (d) the i n s u red building must be insured, at the time of the loss, for at

5 claimed damag e as it wa s not caused by Tropica l Storm All ison or by a f l o o d

. R at h er , as th e a d

j u s t er ’s re v i s edre p o rt re fl ec t ed , al th o u gh there was a

g ener al and tempor ary

condition of flooding as a r esult of Tropica l Storm All ison, the concret e slab uphe aval r esulted fr om po ss ib le s ub terrai n fl oo di ng or gro un d m ov eme ntov er t im e. By 1le a st 8 0 p e rc e nt of its re pla c e me nt c os t or the max imum amount of insuranc e available under the [ NFIP ].
44 C.F.R. Pt. 61 App. A(1), Art. 3(B) (2000) (emphasis in orig inal). See also 44 C.F.R. Pt. 61, App. A(1), Ar t. V(C) (2003)

. Suo py s su

bs e qu e ntl y re qu e ste d that Om a ha re -e va luate its 2 de nia l o f c ov e ra g e . B oth Om aha and Suo py s r e ta ine d e xpe rt s to de te rm ine wh e the r the c a

us e of the str

uc tur a l dama g e to the pr op e rt y was a result of “ ear

th movement” exclud ab l e from cover ag e or wh e the r i t met t

he na rr owland su bs ide nc e e xce pti on

to t he e art h movement exclusion. See 44 C.F.R. Pt. 61 App. A(1) Art. 3 (2000)

. I n lig ht of our ho ldi ng that Suo py s did no t tim e ly fi le pr oo f o f l os s in order to trigg er f

lood insurance cover ag e, we d o n o t addre ss the substance of

the cove rag e dispute re g arding“ea rth movement.”
Th e Di str ic t Co ur

t ha d ju ri sd ict io n p ur su ant t o 4 2 U .S. C. 3 § 407 2 given that Suopy s sought a s damag es pay ment of United States Trea sury

funds from Omaha

in its capac ity

as a f iscal ag ent of FEMA p u rsuant to 42 U.S.C. § 4071 (2003). See Linder &Assoc., Inc. v . Aetna , 166 F. 3d 547, 550 n.3 ( 3d Cir. 1999).
6 letter dated Dec ember

11, 2001, Omaha denied Suopy s’s claim on the g ro un d th a t th e re wa s n o g e ne ra l c on dit ion of fl oo din g a t th e pr op e rt y o nth e r e p o rt e d

d a t e o f l o s s , w h i c hi s r e qu i r e d t o tr i g g e r

S F IP
cover ag e. 2 Suopy s filed a Complaint in the District Court assertingthat Omaha brea ched its contra ct wit h Suopy s in denying f lood insurance
cover ag e and sought be nefits under the SFI P. Omaha soug ht

3 summary judgme nt on the g round that Suopy s’s claim wa s barr ed for failure to submit a sworn proof of loss withi n 60 day s of the date of7 the alleg ed flood loss . Suopy s countere d that he complied with the terms of the SF I P reg ardingproof of loss in li gh t of the repr esentations made by Omaha in its September 27, 2001
c or re sp on de nc e ind ic a tin g that it wou ld acce pt t

he pr oo f o f l os s if filed by October 5, 2001 (despite the f

act that more than 60 day s had passed) . He a

rgued that Omaha ’s re prese ntation c onstitut ed a w aiver of his obligation to subm it proof of loss within 60 day s of the date of the claimed flood loss or , alternatively , that Omaha waived the proof of loss require ment by

acc epting the adjuster’ s repor t in lieu of the pr oo f o f l os s.
The District Court c oncluded that Suopy s’s claim was ba rre d for f ailure to submit a proof of loss within 60 day s of the date of the los s and tha t th ere was no wa ive r o f t hat 60 -d ay

fi lin g re qu ir e me nt. Althou g hth e f

a il ur e to ti me ly

f il e th e p r o o f

o f lo s s s ta n d in g a lo ne war rante d entry

of summary

judgme nt in favor of Omaha, the District Court further

held that Omaha

woul d b e entitled to summary judgme nt beca

use the c laimed prope rty damag e wa s not covere d under the flood insurance policy as i t was caused by ear th movement rathe r than by

land subsidence

. III

. Our jur isd ic tio n ov e r thi s a pp e a l is pr e mis e d on 28 U.S.C

. § 1291. We apply

plenar y revie w to the gra

nt of summary

judgme nt in favor of

Omaha. Va n H

olt , 163 F.3d at 167 (3d Cir. 1998).

I V.

F e de ra l c omm on law g ov e rn s the int e rp re tatio n o f t he SF I P. Lin de r, 16 6 F .3 d at 55 0. Th e S FI P is co ns tr ue d in a c c or da nc e wi th its plain, unambi gu o us meaning , in order to f ashion uniform i n t er p re t at i o nt h ro u gh out t h e c o un try an d av o i d s t at e t o s t at e c o v er age8 v ar i an ce s. Id

. W h i l e w e a p p l y s t an d ar d i n s ur an c e p r i n c i p l e s to construe the SFI P, ge nera l doctrines of w aiver and estoppe l do not apply when the insure r is an ag ent of the United States. Id. ; Gowland
v. Aetna , 1 4 3 F. 3 d

9 5 1 , 9 5 5 (5 thC i r. 1 9 9 8 ) ( qu o t i n g O ff ic e of Personnel Ma nageme nt v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414, 425 (1990) (“A ny exercise of a power gra nted by the C onstitut ion to one of the other bra nches of Gover

nment is lim ited by

a valid re servation of cong ressional c ontrol over f unds in the Trea sury .”).

Be cause any

claim paid by

a WYO Company

is a direc t char g e to the Un i t ed States Trea sury , strict adher ence to the conditions prec edent to pay ment is require d. Fede ral Crop Ins. Corp.
v

. M e rr il l, 332 U .S 3 80 , 3 84 -8 5 ( 19 47 ) ( ho ldi ngtha t in sure d mu st str i ctly comply with all terms and conditions of fe dera l insurance policy and re cog nizi ng duty

of cour ts to obser

ve conditions define d by Congr ess for c harg ing the public trea sury ); Va n H olt , 163 F.3d at 16 5; Flick v . Liberty Mutual , 2 0 5 F.3d 386 ( 9th Cir.), cert. de nied , 531 U.S. 927 (2000) (stric t compliance a pplied to policies written by WYO Com

pa nie s und e r t

he NF I P be c a

us e fl oo d loss c la ims are pa id from United States Tr easur y ).
Mindful of th e s e principles, we addre ss the merits of Suopy s’s two-fold waiver argument: (1) Omaha waived the 60-day period for providing proof of

loss w h en in its S eptember 27, 2001
corr espondenc e to Suopy s, it repres ented it would ac cept a proof of loss if submit ted by

October 5, 2001, and (2) Omaha w aived the pr oof of l oss require ments in acc epting a sig ned and nota rized adjuster’s repor t on October

4, 2001.
A.
As to whether

Omaha w aived the 60-day period for pr oviding pr oo f o f los s w he n in

its Se pte mbe r 2 7, 20 01 c or re sp on de nc e toTh e pa rt ie s d ispu te whic h v e rs ion of the SF I P a

pp lie s to 4 Suopy s’s cl ai m
. Suopy s’s SFI P had an ef fec tive date of Dec ember

26, 2000, and wa s in the form codifie d at 44 C.F.R. Pt. 61, App. A(1) (2000), subjec t to th e l ibera liz ation clause of that policy found at Ar

ticle 10 (whi ch g ives the policy holder the be nefit of
9 Suopy s, it repre sented it would ac cept a proof of loss if submitted by Oc tob e r 5 , 2 00 1, the SF I P pr ov ide s:
J. Re qu ir e me nts in C a se of L os s
4. W ith in 60 da

y s a fte r th e los s , send us
a proof of loss, whic h i s y our statem en t of the amount you are claiming under the policy signe d and sworn to by

y ou, and which f

urnishes us with the following information.

. . . * * *
6. The insura

nce adjuster whom we hire to i nv e sti g a te y our c laim m ay fu rn ish y ou with a proof of loss f

orm, and she
or he may he lp you

c omp le te it. Ho we ver , th is i s a

matte r o f c ourt e sy only , and y ou mu st s til l se nd us a proof of loss wit hin 60 days after the los s even if

the adjuster d o es not fu rn ish the fo rm or he lp you c omp le te it . . . . 44 C.F.R. Part 61, App. (A) (1), Ar t. 9(J ) (2000) / Art. VI I (J) (2003) (italics adde d). 4su bs e qu e nt p oli c y

ame ndme nts ). Th a t li be ra lizatio n c la us e e f f e c t i v e l y i n c o r

p o r a t e d th e D e c e m

b e r 3 1 , 2 0 0 0 r e v i s i o n s t o th e S F IP to t he e xtent th at th e y

e xten d o r b ro a de n th e c ov e ra g e a ff or de d to Suopy s without a dditional pr emium. Fe dera l E m erge ncy Management Ag ency , National F lood I nsuranc e Prog ram (N FI P); I nsuranc e Covera g e and Rates, 65 Fe d. Reg . 60, 758 (Oc t. 12, 2000) (t o b e cod if

ied at 44 C.F .R. Part s 5 9 a nd 61 ). Th e pr ima

ry purp os e of the De cembe r 31, 2000 ame ndments to the SFI P wa s to render the SFI P in plain l an guag e and r estructur e its format to re semble the homeowner ’s policy

. Id . at 60,759. We ag ree wi th Omaha’ s c o n t e n t i o nt h a tr e g ar d l e s s o f w h i c hS F IP l an g u a g e a

p p l i e s , S u o p ys fa ile d to c omp ly

wi th t he pr oo f o f l os s r e qu ir e me nts

. 44 C.F.R. Pt. 61, App. (A)( 1), Art. 9(D) (2000) / Ar t. VI I (D) 5 (2003); 44 C.F.R. § 61.13(d) (2003).
10 Str ic tly c on str ue d, the SF I P c le arl y

and un ambi g uo us ly
r e qu i r e s th a t p r o o f o f l o s s b e s u b m i t t e d b y th e i n s ur e d

w i th i n6 0 d ays of the c la ime d f

loo d lo ss. Th e SF I P pl a c e s th e onus on the ins ur e d to file the proof

of loss within 60 day s reg ardle ss of the re prese ntations and assistanc e, or la ck ther eof, pr ovided by the insurer or its adjuster. Da wk ins v . W itt , 3 18 F .3 d 6 06 (4 th C ir . 2 00 3) (6 0- da y pr oo f o f l os s fi lin g pe ri od

str ict ly enfor c e d e ve n w he re Hurr ic ane F ra n ma de it
e xtre me ly dif

fi c ult fo r ins ur e d pa

rt ie s to c omp ly

wi th t he tim e lim it) ; Phelps v. FEM

A , 785 F.2d 13 ( 1st Cir. 1986) (g overnme nt insurance
a g e nc y no t ba rr e d f ro m a sse rt ingde fe ns e of insur e d’ s f a ilure to f ile written proof

of loss even where mi s repr esentations of the ag ency induced the f

ailure) . This, cou pled with the direc tive that a WYO Company may not a lter, amend, or waive any provision or condition of the SFI P absent express written consent from the Fede ral Insuranc e Administrator, defe ats Suopy s’s claim that Omaha ’s September 27, 5Om aha ha s a po lic y of c on tin

uin g to e xami ne c la ims de sp ite 6 an insured’ s non-compliance with policy require ments g iven that fac ts ma y surfa ce that would support Omaha making a reque st for
wa ive r fr om F EM A. B ut t he me re fa c t th a t an in sure r c on tin ue s it s investigation doe s not c onstitut e a waiver of policy require ments. See gene r a l l y W agner v. D irector FEMA , 847 F.2d 515, 520 ( 9th Cir. 1988) (“ Holding that FEMA may inadver tently extend the limi tations period by answe ringclaimants’ inquiries or by consid ering ne w information ‘would c ontrave ne a strong public policy to e ncoura g e an insurance company to r econside r its orig inal denial whe n confr onted with potentially

new f acts.’. . . .” ) (c itation omit ted).

11 20 01 re pr e se ntatio ns c on sti tut e d a wa ive r of the 60 -d ay re qu ir e me nt. 6 Thus, we join a n u m b er of other Courts of Appe als in holding that strict adher ence to SF I P pr oof of loss pr ovisions, including the 60-da y period for providing proof of loss, is a prerequisite to rec overy under the SFI P. See Phelps, 78 5 F .2 d 1 3 ( 1s t Cir . 1 98 6) ; Dawkins , 318 F.3d 60 6 (4 th C ir . 2 00 3) ; Gowland , 1 43 F .3 d 9 51 (5 th C ir . 1 99 8) ; Neuser v. Hoc ker , 246 F.3d 508 ( 6th Cir. 2001) (fa ilure to c omply with 60- da y fi lin g re qu ir e me nt f

or pr oo f o f los s wa s bar to r e c ov e ry ); Mancini v. Re dland Ins. Co. , 2 48 F .3 d 7 29 (8 th Cir . 2 00 1) (f a ilure to s ub mit
a si g n e d an d s w o r

n p r o o f o f l o s s e n t i t l e d i n s ur e r t o j u d g m e nt a s a matte r o f l aw) ; Flick, 205 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2000), and Sanz v. U.S. Security I ns. Co. , 328 F.3d 1314 ( 11th Cir. 2003) (fa ilure to file a proof of loss within 60 day s without obtaining a written waiver of that require ment from F EMA pre cluded r ecove ry ).

B.
As to w h e th e r

O ma h a ’ s a c c e p ta

n c e o f th e a d ju s te r ’ s r e p ort constituted a wa iver, Suopy s relies on the f ollowing pr ovision of the SFI P as amende d eff

ective 12/31/00:B oth the ve rs ion of the Cla ims Ma nu a l e ff e c tiv e a t th e tim e 7 of Su o p y s ’ s loss and the cur rent Claims Manual (www .fema .g ov/nfip/authreq.htm at ¶q) limit such cla ims to $7500. Th e c ur re nt v e rs ion

re qu ir e s: q. P r oo f of Los s . A Proof of L oss form (pa g e A- 29) signe d by the insured is re quired on e very claim on wh ic h a ny pa y me nt i s r e c omm e nd e d. On c la ims up to $7 ,5 00 , the NF I P F ina l Re po rt fo rm (p a g e A- 25 ) w ill suffice for this purpose. O n claims o v er $7,500, a separ ate Proof of

L oss form m ust be obtained. I f the in s ur e d qu a li f ie s f o r r e p la c e me n t c o s t c o v e r a g e , the adjuster must submit the St atement as to Full Cost of Repair or Replace ment (shown on pag e A-31) for the additional amount rec overa ble under the re place ment cost provisions. I f t he ins ured qua lifies for I ncre ased
12 At our option, we may

acc ept the adjuster ’s re port of the loss instead of y our proof of loss. The adjuster ’s repor t will include information about y our loss and the dama g e s y o us u s ta in e d

. Y o umu s t s ignthe adjuster’ s repor

t. At our opt ion, we may require y ou to s we ar t o th e re po rt

. 44 C.F.R. Pt. 61, App. A.(1), VI I (J)(9) (2003). See also 6 5 Fe d

. R eg. a t 60 ,7 75 (O c tob e r 1 2, 20 00 ). Th is pr ov isi on on ly a pp lie s to c la ims under $7500, which Suopy s’s $12,962.44 claim exceede d. FEMA’ s regulations are c ontrolling re g ardingthe application of the SFI P by WYO Com

pa nie s. 44 C.F .R. Pt. 61 , App . A( 1) , Ar t. 1 1 ( 20 00 ) /

Ar t. I X (2003). T h e FE MA Claims Manual, which is incorpor ated by
r e f e r e n c e i n t o th e F E M A r e g u l a t i o n s ( 4 4 C

. F

. R

. § 6 2

. 2 3 ) , l i m i t s S F IP Article VI I (J)(9) (2003) and Article 9(J)(7) (2000) to c laims w ith a maxi mum value of $7500. 7Cost of Compli ance (I CC), the Incre ased Co s t of Compli ance Proof of L o s s form (shown on pa g e A13) must be s ubmitted. The insure d has 60 day s from the date of

loss to proffer

the proof.
The SFI P as i s s ued to Suopy s on Dec ember 26, 2000, 8 provided: We may , at our option, waive the require ment for the
c omp le tio n a

nd fi lin g o f a

pr oo f o f l os s in c e rta in
cases , in which eve nt y ou will be require d to sign a nd,
a t ou r o pti on , s we ar t o a

n ad jus te r’ s re po rt of

the los s which includes infor

mation about y our l oss and the dama g e s su sta ine d, wh ic h is nee de d b y us in o rd e r t o a dju st your c la im. 44 C.F.R. Pt. 61 Art. 9(J )(7) (2000) ( italics added)

. 13 Suo py s su g g e sts that th e a bo ve -q uo te d SF I P wh ic h b e c ame eff ective D ece mber 30, 2000 (65 Fe d. Reg . at 60,758), e liminated the $7500 limit ation. C

o m p a re 4 4 C.F.R. Pt. 61, Art. 9(J )(7) (2000)

. 8 We disag ree . Both ve rsions of the SFI P make clea r that acc eptanc e of the a djuster’s repor

t is at the option of the insurer . Moreove r, the imp le me ntatio n o f e ith e r v e rs ion of thi s SF I P pr ov isi on is s ub je c t to the lim itations imp os e d b y F EM A. 42 U. S.C. § 4 01 9 ( F EM A establi s h es t h e r

u l es go v ern i n g ad

j u s t m en tan d

p ay m en to f prove d and
a pp ro ve d c la ims fo r l os se s) . T he $7 50 0 li mit a tio n im po se d b y F EM A is binding on Suopy s. S u opy s’s claim wa s for $12,962.44. Consequently , in the absenc e of a wr itten waiver

from F EMA, Omaha was ba rre d from ac ceptingthe adjuster’ s repor t in pl ace of proof

of loss. 44 C.F.R. Pt . 61, App. (A) (1) , Ar t

. 9 (D) (2000) / Art. VI I (D) (2003); 44 C.F.R. § 61.13(d) (2003).14 I V.
For the fore g oing r easons, we wi l l aff irm the g rant of summary judgme nt in favor of

Omaha ba sed upon Suopy s’s failure to s tr ic tly c omp ly wi th S F I P pr ov isi on s r e g ard ingpr oo f o f l os s.