### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T June 8, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 12509 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 2 - 2 1 4 5 2 - C V- J AL K E N Z Y L U C I E N , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s US SE CURI TY I NSURAN CE C O R P O R A T I O N , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e ,

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju n e 8, 2005) B e f o r e T J O F L A T , A N D E R S O N a n d D U B I N A , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R I A M: Ke n z y L u c i e n ap p e a l s p r o s e th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s g r a n to f d e f e n d a n tUS2

S ec uri ty’ s m ot i on for j ud gm enton hi s c om pl ai ntal l egi ng brea ch of contra ctun der the N a t i ona l F l ood I ns ur a nc e A c t( “ N F I A ” ) . T he i s s ue on appe a l i s w he the rthe di stri ctcourterre d w hen i tgrant ed S ec uri ty’ s m ot i on , du e t o L uci en’ s und i sput ed fa i l ure t o p rovi de a s w orn p roof of l oss w i thi n 6 0 d ay s of the dat e the dam age w as in c u rr e d . L u c ie n c o n te n d s th a t b e c a u s e U S S e c u r ity d id n o t s e n d a n a d ju s te rto h is prop erty f

or m ore than 9 0 d ay s a ft erhe no t i fi ed them of the fl oo d, they a re e s to p p e d f

r o m a s s e r tin g th a t h e w a iv e d a n y o b je c tio n s to s e ttle m e n t a m o u n ts b e c a u s e h e f

a ile d to a d h e r e to th e p o lic y ’s 6 0 d a y f ilin g p e r io d . In re vi ew i ng a di stri ctcourt ’ s gra ntof a m ot i on for j ud gm enton part i al fi nd i ng s pursuantt o F ed. R . C i v. P . 52 (c ), w e r evi ew the di stri ctcourt ’ s l egal concl usi on s de nov o and i t s f i nd i ng s of f

ac tfor c l ea r e rr or. S ee S anz v. U S S ec . Ins. C o. , 32 8 F . 3d 13 14 , 13 17 n. 5 (11 th C i r. 20 03 ). I n F e de r a l C r op I ns . C orp. v. M e rr i l l , 332 U S 380, 384- 85, 68 S . C t . 1, 92 L .E d . 1 0 ( 1 9 4 7 ) , th e S u p r e m e C o u r t h e ld th a t a n in s u r e d is r e q u ir e d to un w aver i ng l y a dh er e t o the rul es and regul at i on s a ss oci at ed w i th a fe dera l in s u r a n c e p o lic y . I d . F o llo w in g th e S u p r e m e C o u r t’s m a n d a te , s e v e r a l c ir c u it c our t s i nt e rpr e t e d a n i ns ur e d’ s f a i l ur e t o pr ovi de apr oof of l os s f orm w i thi n the r e qui r e d 60 da y s a s aba rt o r e c ove ry . S e e , e . g. , D a w ki ns v. W i tt , 318 F . 3d 606 ( 4th C i r . 2003) ; M a nc i ni v. R e dl a nd I ns . C o. , 248 F . 3d 729 ( 8th C i r . 2001) ; F l i c k v.3

L i be r ty M ut . F i r e I ns . C o. , 205 F . 3d 386 ( 9th C i r . 2000) ; G ow l a nd v. A e tna , 143 F . 3d 951 ( 5th C i r . 1998) ; P he l ps v. F e d. E m e r ge nc y M gm t . A ge nc y , 785 F . 2d 13 ( 1s tC i r . 1986) . I n S a nz , w e f ol l ow e d the othe rc i r c ui t s ’ c onc l us i ons , a l s o hol di ng th a t a n in s u r e d ’s f

a ilu r e to a d h e r e to th e p r o o f o f lo s s r e q u ir e m e n t b a rr e d r e c o v e ry . S e e S a nz , 382 F . 3d a t1318. In S an z, th e h o m eo w n er n ev er fi l eda p ro o f o f l o ss w i th U S S ecu ri ty, a l though he di d c ons i s t e nt l y c om pl y w i th the a dj us t e r ’ s a nd e ngi ne e r s ’ i ns truc t i ons t o g etan es t i m at e f

or the am ou ntof dam age c ause d b y the fl oo d, w hi ch he forw ar ded t o U S S ec uri ty. Id. at13 17 . S om et i m e there af t er , U S S ec uri ty deni ed h i s cl ai m . Id . In j o i n i n g o th er ci rcu i t s i n h o l d i n g th atfai l u re t o fi l e a p ro o f o f l o ss form i n a t i m el y f

as hi on barr ed any type of r ec ov ery, w e not ed thati tw as undi s put e d tha tS a nz ne i the rf i l e d apr oof

of l os s f orm a ta ny t i m e , nordi d he s u b m it aw a iv e rf

r o m th e F e d e r a l I n s u r a n c e A d m in is tr a to r . I d . a t 1 3 1 9 . I n r e s p o n s e t o Sa n z ’ s e s t o p p e l a r g u me n t , w e n o t e d th a tw h i l e th e Su p r e me C our tha s noty e ta nnounc e d ape rs e rul e ba rr i ng i ndi vi dua l s f r om a s s e r t i ng es t op pel cl ai m s a gai nstthe U ni t ed S t at es go vernm ent , i thas c on cl ud ed thatsuch c l a i m s a r e “ w a rr a nt e d onl y i f a f f i rm a t i ve a nd e gr e gi ous m i s c onduc tby gove rnm e nt ag en t s ex i st s. ” Id . at1 3 1 9 -2 0 . V i ew i n g th e fact s o f S an z’ s case th ro u g h th e p ri sm o f “a f f irm a tiv e a n d e g r e g io u s m is c o n d u c t,” w e h e ld th a t U S S e c u r ity ’s f a ilu r e to4

i nf orm S a nz of

the pr oof

of l os s r e qui r e m e ntw a s a n i ns uf f i c i e ntgr ound f

or e s t oppe l , a s w e r e a l l e ge d a s s ur a nc e s t o S a nz “ tha the ha d f i l l e d outa l l the n e c e s s a ry p ap e rw o rka n d th a t S e c u r ity w o u ld ‘ta k e c a r e ’ o f h is c la im .” I d . a t 1 3 2 0 . B e c a u s e th e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s u n e q u iv o c a lly h e ld th a t af a ilu r e to a d h e r e to the t erm s of afe dera l i nsurance bar s r ec ov ery, and b ec ause w e have i nt erpret ed tha thol di ng t o i nc l ude f i l i ng apr oof

of l os s f orm be y ond the 60 da y s f ol l ow i ng a f l ood a s s uc h af

a i l ur e , w e c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n gr a nt i ng U S S ec uri ty’ s m ot i on for j ud gm enton part i al fi nd i ng s. M oreover, the di stri ct courtdi d n oterr i n rej ec t i ng L uci en’ s e st op pel cl ai m , as no ne of the evi dence s how e d a ny be ha vi oron the pa r tof U S S e c ur i ty tha tw a s “ a ggr a va t e d a nd e gr e gi ous . ” A c c or di ngl y , the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s j udgm e nti s a f f i rm e d. A F F I R M E D .