14

‐ 3431 Fetch, NYC Inc. v. Allstate Insurance Co. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DA TABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 10 th day of September, two thousand fifteen.
Present: PETER W. HALL, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges

.

____________________________________________________ F ETCH , NYC I NC ., Plaintiff-Appellant , v. No. 14-3431-cv
A LLSTATE I NSURANCE C O ., Defendant-Appellee,
K EVIN S CHAEFFER , Defendant

. *

____________________________________________________ For Plaintiff-Appellant: S TEVEN G. F AUTH , Steven G. Fauth, LLC, New York, NY. For Defendant-Appellee: J OSEPH J.A GUDA , J R ., and Michael D. Breinin (on the brief), Nelsen, Carter & Treas L.L.C., Metairie, LA.

____________________________________________________

* The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the caption of this case as set forth above.2 Appeal from a judgment of the United States Di strict Court for the Southern District of New York (Forrest, J .). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

. Fetch, NYC Inc. (“Fetch”) appeals from an August 5, 2014 decision a nd order entered in the United States District Court for the S outhern 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 cour t 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 “constr ue 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 a ssume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedur al 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(1) (2015) . Furthermore, without deciding whether the Federal Emergency Management Agency Fl ood Insurance Manual (“FIM”) has been incorporated by reference into th e National Flood Insurance Program ’s regulations at 44 C.F.R. § 62.23(i)(1), we recognize it is entitled to deference. See Union Carbide Corp. & Subsidaries v.
C.I.R. , 697 F.3d 104, 109 (“We ordinarily give deference to an agency’s interp retation of its own ambiguous regulations . . . .”). We note that Fe tch’s SFIP was inconsistent with FIM Section IX(F)(2), as it did not include th e building owner and tenant as jo int policyholders in a building coverage policy. FEMA, N ATIONAL F LOOD I NSURANCE P ROGRAM , F LOOD I NSURANCE M ANUAL3 GR 13 (Oct. 1, 2013). Consequently, Alls tate did not breach the SF IP when rejecting Fetch’s claim. The district court properly granted Allstate’s motion for summary judgment.
We have considered Fetch’s remaining argumen ts and find that they are without merit. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT: CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK