FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT DECEMBER 10, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK

Honora ble J ames H. H ancoc k, United States District J udg e for the Northe rn District of * Alabama , sitti ng by

desig nation. [PUBLIS H]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1023 0

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 05-00583 -CV -B DOROTHY SHUFORD,
Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us FIDELITY NATIONAL PROPERTY & CAS UALTY INSURANCE CO., Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court f o r t h e S o u t h e rn D i s t r i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (D ec em be r 10, 200 7) Before MAR CUS and PRY OR, Circuit Judges, and HA NCO CK, District Judge.

*2

PRY OR, Circuit Judge: T he tw o m ai n que sti ons in thi s a ppe al inv olv e the ti m el ine ss o f a pr oof of los s fo r aninsur an ce pol ic y

iss ue d un de r the N at ion al F loo d I nsur an ce P ro gr am a nd whe th er a re la te d t or t cl ai m of b adfai th refu sa l t o p ay is pre em pt edby feder al law. D or oth y S huf or d a ppe al s the sum

m ar y j udgm en t a ga ins t he r co m pla int r eg ar din g th e d en i al o f he r cl ai m fo r be n ef i t s u n d era S t an d ar dFl o o dIn s u ra n ce Po l i cy. S h u fo rd ’s pr ope rty w as da m ag ed

by af loo d c au se d by

H ur ri cane I va n. A ft er tha t hurr ic an e, the Federa l Insurance A dm inistrator im posed a one-y ear deadline for the filing of proofs of loss for contested claim s, but Shuford failed to file a proof of loss w ithin one y ear. T he dis tr ic t c ourt di sm iss ed S huf or d’ s to rt cl ai m on the gr ound tha t i t w as e xpr es sly preem pted by a fe deral re gulatio n, 44 C. F. R. § 61, app. A (1), art. IX , and the district court entered summ ary j udgm ent against S huford’ s com plaint for breach of the policy
on th e g ro un d t ha t Sh uf

or d fa il edto fil e a t im el y

pro of of l os s. We affir m . I. BACKG ROUND D or oth y S huf or d ow ne d abus ine ss tha t w as in sure d by aS ta ndard

F loo d Insurance Policy

issued by Fidelity

Na tional Property

and Casualty

Insurance Co m pa ny a nd u nde rw ri tte n by

the U
. S. T re as ur

y a s part of the N at ion al Flo od In sur an ce P ro gr am . Fi de lity se rv ed as a “ Wri te -Y our -O w n” ins ur an ce pr ovi de r— a pr iva te pr ovi de r tha t part ic ipa te d in the N at ion al F loo d I nsur an ce P ro gr am . S ee 443

C.F .R. § 62.23. The providers a dm inister Na tional Flood Insurance Pr ogram policies as fiscal a gents of the United States. See 4 2 U.S .C
. § 4071 (a)( 1). The S tandard Policy provided as follo ws that only the Feder al Insurance A dm inistrator could alter its term s: “ This policy

can n o t b e ch anged nor can any of its provisi ons be waived
w ith out the e xpr es s w ri tte n c onse nt o f the F ed er al I nsur an ce A dm ini str at or . ” 44 C.F.R. § 61 , app . A(2), ar t. VII.D. On Se ptem

ber 16, 2004, H urricane I van caused flood i n g t h at dam aged Sh uf or d’ s ic e de liv er

y sy ste m . T he te rm s of the St an da rd Po lic y re qui red the pol ic yhol de r to file apr oof of los s w iththe ins ur er

w ith in 6 0 day s of

the los s. 44 C. F. R. § 61 , app. A (2 ), a rt
. V II
. J. Afte r th e hurr ic an e, the A dm ini str at or c re at ed a sy stem for expedi ted paym ents of claim s and, for contested claim s, w aived the 60-day deadline for a proof of loss and instead im posed a one-y ear deadline: Re c e nt l y , an um

be r o f S t a t e s e xp e r i e nc e d c a t a str op hi c l os se s as a re sult of three hurricanes (C harley , F rances, and Ivan) w ithin the span of a fe w w ee ks, an d a fourth hur ri cane (J eanne ) is abo ut t o m ak e la ndf al l on the Southeast c oast. As a result, there is a shortage of q u al i fied ad j ust er s av ai la

ble to ad j ust the los se s r es ult ing f

ro m the se hur ri cane s. So , the re is anur ge nt n ee d to ex pe dit e cl ai m s paym en ts t o po lic yhol de rs . T o e xped it e cl ai m s paym en ts s o th at pol ic yhol de rs a ff

ec te d by the se c ir cu m stanc es a re not subj ec t to undue ha rd shi p, I am w ai vin g th e r e q u i r e me n ti n V I I
. J
. 4 o f

t h e S F I P D w e l l i n g an d

Ge n e r a l P r o p e rt y F o rms an d V II I. J. 4 of t he SFIP R es id en ti al Co nd om in iu m Bu il di ng A sso ci at ion Po lic y F orm f or the pol ic yhol de r to fi le a pr oof of los s pr ior to re ce ivi ng ins ur an ce pr oc ee ds. I nst ea d, pay m en t of the los s w ill be ba se d onthe4

ev al u a t i o n o f

d a m a g e i n t h e a d

j u s t e r ’ s r e p o rt
. T h i s m e a n s the r e q u i r e men ti n VI I
. M
. 1 a n dVI I I
. M
. 1 t h a tl o s s e s wi l l b e p a yab l e 6 0 d a ys af te r the ins ur er re ce ive s the pol ic yhol de r’ s pr oof of los s ( or w ith in 9 0 da y s afte r the a dj ust er

f ile s ar ep ort si gne d a nd s w or n to by the pol ic yhol de r in lie u of

apr oof of los s) w ill not

appl y . I nst ea d, the los s w ill be pa y ab le a s so on as pr ac tic ab le a ft er the ins ur er

r ec ei ve s th e ad j ust er ’ s r ep ort. T his pr oc ed ur e w ill a llo w the ins ur er to pr om ptl y adj ust, settle, and pay claim s based on the adj uster’ s report. Also, under the te rm s of

thi s wa ive r, the fo llo w ing pr ovi sio ns wi ll not ap ply : V II
. J. 7, J. 9, an d M.2
. c of

the S FI P D w el lin g a nd G en er al P ro pe rty F orm s a nd V II I. J. 7, J. 9, a nd M
. 2. c of the S FI P Re sid en tia l C ondo m ini um Bu ild ing A s s o c i a t i o n P o l i c y F o rm. In t h e e v en t a p o l i cyh o l d erd i s ag re es wi t h t h e i n s u re r’s adj ustm ent, settlem ent, or pay m ent of the cla i m , a

policyhold er m ay subm it to the ins ur er

a pr oof of los s w ith in one y ear fr om the da te of the los s. T he pr oof

of los s m ust m ee t the r equir em en ts o f V II
. J. 4 of the SFI P D we lling or G eneral P roperty Fo rm or VII I. J.4 of the SF IP Re sid en tia l C ondo m ini um Bu ild ing A sso ci at ionPo li cyF orm . T he insurer will then process the policyh o l d er ’s p roof of loss in its norm al fas hi on . If the ins ur er

r ej ec ts the pr oof

of los s inw hol e or

in pa rt , the pol ic yhol de r m ay

f ile alaw sui t a ga ins t the ins ur er w ith in o ne y ear of

the da te of t he writ te n den ia l of all or part of th e cl ai m as pr ov id edin VII.R of t h e SF IP Dw elling or Genera l Property Form or V III .R of the SFI P Res id en ti al Co nd om in iu m Bu il di ng Ass oc ia ti on Po li cy Fo rm . Fo r ex am ple , a pol ic yhol de r w ho s uf

fe re d af loo d lo ss f

ro m Hu rr i ca n e C h ar l ey o n Au g u s t1 4 , 2 0 0 4 , a n dd i s ag re es wi t h t h e i n s u re r’s de ci sio n ba se d on the ad

j ust er ’ s re port, ha s until A ugus t 13, 200 5, to fi le the proof of l oss detailing the area (s) of disagree m ent. Apolicyhold er w ho suf fe re d a floo d loss fr om H ur ri cane Fr an ce s on Se pte m be r 7, 200 4, ha s un til S ep te m

be r 6, 200 5, to fi le the pr oof of los s de ta ili ng the a re a( s) of dis ag re em en t, a nd those w ho s uf fe re d af loo d lo ss f

ro m H ur ri cane Iv anon S ep te m

be r 24 h av e unt il Se pte m be r 23, 2005 , to fi le apr oof of los s de ta ili ng the a re a( s) of dis ag re em en t. T his w ai ve r is p ur suant t o th e pr ov is ions de al ing w ith5

am endm ents, w aivers, and assignm ents of t he SFI P (VII .D . of the SFIP Dw elling Form

and Gener al Property

Form and VIII .D. of the SFI P Residential Condo m inium Building Association Policy Form ). Since the a dj ust er av ai la

bil ity pr obl em w ill af

fe ct not onl y

the c la im s f

ro m the three hurricanes refe rred to above, bu t also any other flood events th at m ay oc cu r w hil e the ad

justm en t of

c la im s f ro m tho se hur

ri cane s is ongo ing , thi s w ai ve r ap pli es to al l c la im s a ri sin g on A ugus t 12 , 200 4, an d th er ea ft er

unt il D ec em

be r 31, 200 4. Sh uf or d fi le d a cla im

wit h F id el it y b u t n e ve r su bm it te d a pro of of l os s. On February 22, 2005, Fidelity denied Shuford’ s claim on the ground that the Standard Po lic y did not c ove r Sh uf

or d’ s ic e de liv er

y sy ste m . S huford filed a c om pla int f or br ea chof c ontra ct a nd the tor

t of ba d f ai th r ef usal to pa y

a ga ins t F ide lity

in sta te
co urt. F ide lity

r em ove d th e ac tio n to fe de ra l cour t, w hic h is the exc lus ive f or um f or cl a i m s a r i s i n g u n d e r t h e N a t i o n a l F l o o d I n s u r a n c e A c t
. S e e 4 4 C
. F
. R
. § 61, a pp. A( 2), art. VI I. R. The district c ourt dism issed S huford’ s tort claim on the grou nd that it w as pr ee m

pte d by f ed er al law . T he dis tr ic t c ourt the n gr an te d su m m ar y j udgm en t ag ai nst S huf or d’ s c om

pla int f or br ea chof

c ontra ct be ca use S hu fo rd ha d no t f

ile d a p ro o f o f l o s s wi t h i n o n e yea r o f h erl o s s . Fi n al l y, t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt d en i ed Sh u fo rd ’s
m oti on t o a lte r or

a m en d the su m

m ar y j udgm en t un de r Fe de ra l R ule of Ci vil Procedure 59(e). II. ST AN DA RD S OF RE VIEW A f ewdif fe re nt standard s of re vie w gove rn thi s ap pe al
. W e re vie w a gr an t of6

sum m ar y j udgm en t by

adis tr ic t c ourt de nov o. C ru z v. P ubl ix S upe r Mkt s. , I nc . , 428 F. 3d 1 379, 138 2 ( 11th C ir
. 200 5)
. W e app ly the sa m e le ga l st an da rd s th at bou nd the dis tr ic t c ourt and v ie w a ll fa ct s a nd r ea sona ble inf er en ce s inthe li ght

m ost f av or ab le to the non m ovi ng p ar

ty
. Id
. (quot ing S tr ic kland v
. W at er W orks & S ew er

Bd
. , 239 F. 3d 1 199, 120 3 ( 11th C ir
. 200 1) ). W e re vie w the de nia l of a m oti on f or le av e to
co nduc t l im ite d di sc ove ry und er Ru le 56( f) fo r ab use of

dis cr et ion
. C ar

m ic al v. Be ll H el ic opt er

T ex tr on, I nc . , 117 F. 3d 4 90, 493 ( 11th C ir
. 199 7) ( ci tin g W al la ce v. Br ow ne ll Po nti ac -G MC Co
. , 703 F. 2d 525, 527– 28 (1 1th Ci r. 1983 ))
. W e re vie w the de te rm ina tio n th at

asta te law c la im

is pr ee m pte d by fe de ra l lawde nov o. I rv ing v. Mazda Motor Corp. , 136 F. 3d 764, 767 (11t h Cir. 1998 ) (c iting Le wis v. Brunswick Co rp . , 107 F. 3d 1494 , 1498 (1 1th Ci r. 199 7) ). W e re vie w the de nia l of am oti on t o alter or am end a j udgm ent under Ru le 59(e) f or abuse of discretion. May s v. U .S
. Po sta l S er

v. , 122 F
. 3d 4 3, 46 ( 11th C ir. 19 97 ) (ci tin g A m . H om e A ssu ranc e Co
. v. Glen n Es te ss & Ass oc s., In c., 76 3 F .2d 12 37 , 12 38 –3 9 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 5) ). III. D ISCU SSION Shuford challenges four rulings b y the district court. F irst, S huford challenges the summ ary

j udgm ent against her com plaint for breach of contract. Sec ond, Shuford
ar gue s th at

the dis tr ic t cour

t abus ed it s di sc re tio n w he n it

de nie d he r m oti on f

or le av e to condu ct lim ited discov ery under Rule 56(f). Third, Shuford argues that the district7

co urt er re d w he n it ru le d th at

he r tort c la im

w as pr ee m

pte d by f ed er al law . F ourth, Sh uf or d arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt a

buse d its disc re tio n whe n it de nie d he r m oti on to a lte r or am en d the sum m ar y j udgm en t unde r Ru le 59( e) be ca use the int er

pr et at ion by the district court of the Adm inistrator’ s waiver co n fli cted with the standard pr ac tic e in the f

loo d c la im

a dj ust ing ind

ustry . E ac h of

S huf or d’ s a rg um en ts f

ai ls. A

. Shu ford’ s C om pla int for B re ac h of

Co ntr ac t F

ail s. Sh uf or d pr es en ts thr ee a rg um en ts t o e xc use he r fa ilu re to fi le apr oo f of los s
w ith in o ne y ear. Fi rs t, Sh uf or d ar gue s that the A dm ini str at or ’ s wa ive r dis pe nse d w ith the pr oof -o f- los s r equir em en t and con ve rt ed the ad j ust er ’ s re port into a p ro of of los s,
an d S hu fo rd co nte nds tha t sh e w as not r equir ed to fi le apr oof

of los s be ca use she never knew about the claim adj uster’ s estim ate on which the denial of pay m ent was based. S econd, Shuford ar gues that Fidelityshoul d have been equitablyestopped from asserting Shuford’ s failure to file a proof of l oss as a defense. T hird, Shuford
ar gue s th at

F ide lity c onstru ct ive ly

w ai ve d th e pr oof

-o f- los s r equir em en t. E ac h of the se a rg um en ts f

ai ls. 1. S huf or d D id N ot C om

ply w iththe P ro of

-o f- L oss Re qui re m en t i n th e Adm inistrator’ s W aiver. Fi de lity w as en tit le d to sum m ar y j udgm en t ag ai nst Sh uf or d’ s co m

pl ai nt f or breach of c ontract becaus e Sh u fo rd fa iled to file a proof of loss within a y ear.8

A lth oughthe A dm ini str at or ’ s w ai ve r dis pe nse d w iththe 60- da y de ad lin e fo r a pr oof of loss, the wa iver provided a new deadline for the fil i n g o f a p ro o f of loss. For a
co nte ste d c la im , a pol ic yhol de r ha d to f ile apr oof

of los s w ith in a

y ear: “ Inthe e ve nt
a pol ic yhol de r dis ag re es w iththe ins ur er ’ s adj ust m en t, se ttl em en t, or pa ym en t of

the cl ai m , apol ic yhol de r m ay sub m it to the ins ur er a pr oof of los s w ith in o ne y ear fr om the da te of

the los s. ” T he w ai ve r ex pla ine d that the r ej ec tio n of ati m el y pr oof of los s
w as ac ondi tio n pr ec ed en t f or the fi lin g of a law sui t: “ If the ins ur er re j ec ts the pr oof of loss in whole or in part, the pol i cyh o l der m ay file a lawsuit against the insu rer wi t h i n o n e yea r o f t h e d a t e o f t h e w ri t t en d en i al
. . . . ” C o n t ra ry t o Sh u fo rd ’s
ar gum en t, the pe rm iss ive te rm “ m ay ” in the phr as e “ a pol ic y hol de r m ay

sub m it to the ins ur er a pr oof of

los s” m eans tha t the pol ic yhol de r ha d ac hoi ce w he the r to c ha lle nge the ins ur er ’ s dec isi on, not tha t f ili ng the pr oof

of los s w as opt ion al
. I f fi lin g apr oof of loss within a y ear of the loss w ere not a requirem ent for obtaining j udicial relief, th e cl au se “ [i ] f the ins ur er r ej ec ts the pr oof

of los s inw hol e or

in pa rt ” w oul d be supe rf luo us. Sh uf or d a rg ue s th at th e A dm ini str at or ’ s w ai ve r co nve rt ed the r ep ort of

the cl ai m a dj ust er int o apr oof of los s and, in the al te rn at ive , tha t a proo f of los s w as not required because Shuford never knew about th e claim adj uster’ s estim ate on which the de nia l of pay

m en t wa s base d. T he se ar gum en ts fa il ba se d on the pla in l an gua ge9

of the w ai ve r. T he pr obl em w ithS huf or d’ s f ir st arg um en t i s th at

the langua ge in the
w ai ve r tha t “pa ym en t of

the los s w ill be ba sed on the e va lua tio n of da m ag e in the adj uster’ s report” does not sug g es t t h at the adj uster’ s report is a proof of loss for a
co nte ste d c la im
. T he w ai ve r dispe nse s w iththe ne ed f or apr oof of los s w he n th e ad j ust er ’ s r ep or

t i s un co nt es te d, but

la te r la ngua ge in the w ai ve r es ta bli she s th at

a p ro o f o f l o s s i s n ec es s ar y fo r a co n t es t ed cl ai m . Th e p ro b l em wi t h Sh u fo rd ’s alter na t i ve a r gu m e nt i s t ha t , a l t ho ug h S hu f or d ne e de d t o kn ow t ha t he r c l aim had be ende nie d, she did

not ne ed to knowof

the e sti m at e on w hic h th e de nia l w as ba se d. T he A dm ini str at or ’ s wa ive r al low ed a pol ic yhol de r to s ubm it a pr oof of los s “ [i ] n th e
ev ent [s he ] dis ag re es w iththe ins ur er ’ s a dj ust m en t, se ttl em en t, or pa ym en t of

the claim .” Bec ause she disagreed with the denial of pay m ent by Fidelity , S huford was
re qui red to fi le apr oof

of los s, e ve n if

she ha d no kno w le dge of the und er ly ing ad j ust er ’ s r ep ort. 2. F ide lity

W as N ot E qui ta

bly E sto ppe d f

ro m Ra isi ng the P ro of

-o f- L oss Requirem ent as a D efense. Sh uf or d ne xt arg ue s th at

F ideli ty s hould have be ene qui ta bly e sto ppe d f

ro m
ra isi ng S huf

or d’ s f ai lur e to subm it a pro of of los s as a def en se be ca use F ide lity

se nt Sh u f o r d a l e tt e r e r ro ne ousl y sta tin g th at

the 60- da y

pr oof -o f- los s r equir em en t a

ppl ie d. W e dis ag re e. E qui ta

ble e sto ppe l i s no t an a va ila ble a rg um en t f

or S huf or d.10

T he S upr em e Co urt ha s he ld tha t e qui ta ble e sto ppe l i s un av ai la

ble in a cl ai m agai n s t the governm ent for funds from the publi c trea sury . Of fice of Personnel Mgm t. v. Ri ch m ond, 496 U
. S. 414 , 424 –34, 110 S. Ct
. 246 5, 247 1–76 ( 1990 ). T he cl ai m an t i n R ic hm ond be cam e ine lig ibl e fo r dis ab ili ty be ne fi ts w he n he re lie d on the erroneous advice of a f

ederal e m ploy ee and tooka j ob in which he earned m ore than
w as pe rm itt ed by the el igi bil ity re qui re m en ts of the re le va nt sta tut e. I d. a t 41 6–18 , 110 S. Ct
. a t 24 67–6 8. T he S upr em e Co ur t de cl ine d to e sto p e qui ta bly the gove rn m en t f

ro m f ind ing the c la im an t i ne lig ibl e fo r dis ab ili ty be ne fi ts b ecau se the Appropriations Clause prohib its m onetary paym ents from

the fede ra l treasury

that ha ve not be enauth or iz ed

by Co ngr es s. I d. a t 42 4–2 8, 11 0 S. Ct
. a t 24 71–7 3. T he erroneous advice of a f

ederal e m ploy ee could not ov erride the r equirem ents that Co ngr es s ha d e sta

bli she d f or the dis bur sa l of

f ed er al f unds
. Beca use Fidelity

wa s acting as a fiscal agent of the United States, see 42 U. S. C. § 40 71( a) (1 ), Ri ch m ond ap pli es . A sui t f or be ne fi ts u nde r the N at ion al F loo d In sur an ce P ro gr am

r ai se s th e sa m e co nc er

ns, und er the Appr opr ia tio ns C lause , a s a sui t a ga ins t a

gov er nm enta l ent ity

be ca use be ne fi ts u nde r the N at ion al F loo d In sur an ce P ro gr am ar e pai d fr om the fe de ra l tre as ur y . E qui ta bly e sto ppi ng F ide lity fr om r ai sin g th e fa ilu re to fi le apr oof of los s as a def en se w oul d all ow the e rr one ous letter fr om

Fidelity to alter the re quirem ents for the disbursal of federa l funds. U nder11

Ri ch m ond, e qui ta

ble e sto ppe l i s un av ai la

ble to Sh uf

or d. E ve n a ssu m ing f

or the sa ke of

a rg um en t tha t e qui ta

ble e sto ppe l m igh t be
av ai la ble f or ac la im an t un de r a St an da rd P oli cy , S huf

or d c an not

e sta bli sh

“ af fi rm at ive an d egr eg iou s m isc ondu ct
. ” Sanz v. U
. S. Se c. In s. Co
. , 328 F. 3d 1 314, 1319 –20 (1 1th Ci r. 2003 ) (p er c ur ia m ). I n S an z, a n in sur an ce pr ovi de r in the Na tional Flood Insurance P rogram err oneous ly

inform ed a p olicyhold er that he had
co m ple te d a ll of the ne ce ssary pa pe rw ork an d tha t the pr ovi de r w oul d “ ta ke c ar e” of the c la im
. I d. a t 13 17. W e de cl ine d to e sto p equi ta bly the pr ovi de r fr om

a sse rt ing the pr oof -o f- los s r equir em en t a s ade fe nse be caus e, e ve n a ssu m ing f or the sa ke of
ar gum en t tha t e qui ta

ble e sto ppe l m igh t be a va ila ble in lim ite d c ir cu m stanc es , the
co nduc t of

the pr ovi de r did

not r ise to the le ve l of

a ff irm at ive a nd e greg iou s
m isc onduct
. Id . a t 1320
. I n th e lig ht o f Sanz , e qui ta ble e sto ppe l i s in ap pli ca ble be ca use the le tte r fr om

F ide lity to Sh uf or d, w hic h st at ed

tha t the 60- da y

pr oof -o f- los s
re qui re m en t a

ppl ie d, did

not c onst itu te a ff

irm at ive a nd e gr eg iou s c ondu ct
. 3. F ide lity

D id N ot C onstru ct ive ly

W ai ve the P ro of

-o f- L oss Re qui re m en t. Sh uf or d a rg ue s th at

F ide lity c onstru ct ive ly

w ai ve d th e pr oof

-o f- los s requirem ent because Fidelity did no t base its denial of paym ent on Shuford’s f ailure to file a proof of loss. A gain, w e disagree. In Sanz we declined to recognize a
co nstru ct iv e w ai ve r w he n th e pr ovi de r pr oc es se d th e cl ai m w ith out apr oof of los s12

an d r ep ea te dly

a ssu re d th e pol ic yhol de r tha t all ne ce ssary pa pe rs ha d be enf

ile d. I d. at 1318 –19. W e exp la ine d that str ic t com pli an ce w ith the pr ovi sio ns o f fe de ra l f loo d i n s u r a n c e p o l i c i e s i s r e q u i r e db e c au s e p a ym e n t s a r e d r a w n f r o m t h e f e d e r a l t r e a s u ry. Id. a t 1 3 1 7

– 1 8
. We h el d that failure to file a proof of loss bars recovery absent an
ex pr es s w ri tte n w ai ve r of

the pr oof -o f- los s re qui re m en t by the A dm ini str at or . S ee id. at 131 7–19
. B. The D istrict Cour t Did Not A buse Its Discretion W hen It De nied Shu

ford’s Motion for

Leave To Conduct Limited D iscovery. Shuford argues that the district c ourt abused its discretion when it denied her
m o t i o n f o r l e a v e t o c o n du c t l i m i t e d d i s c o v e ry r e g a r d i n g t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of

the A dm ini str at or ’ s w ai ve r. Se e Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 56( f)
. A co urt m ay gr an t leav e for lim ite d disc ove ry unde r Ru le 56( f) w he n a party is una ble to pre se nt e sse nti al f

ac ts in o ppos iti on to a m ot io n fo r sum m ar y j udgm en t, Carm ic al , 117 F
. 3d a t 49 3, but Shuford’ s m otion failed to m ention a need to determ ine the m eaning of the waiver
. T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n. C. F ed er al L awE

xp ressl y P re em pts Shu ford’ s T ort Claim of B ad F

ait h. Sh uf or d’s ar gu m en t th at he r to rt c la im of b adfai th is no t p reem pt edfai ls . A cl ai m und er sta te law is ex pr es sly

pr ee m pte d “ w he n C ongr es s ha s m an if es te d it s intent to preem

pt state law explicitly in the language of the statute.” Cliff v. Pay co13

G en . A m . C r e d i t s , I n c . , 3 6 3 F
. 3 d1 1 1 3 , 1 1 2 2 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2 0 0 4 )
. F e d e r a l r e g u l a t i ons h av e t h e sa m e p re emp t i v e ef fe ct as fe d er al s t at u t es . Fi d el i t y Fe d . S av . & Lo an As s ’n v. de la Cuesta, 458 U.S . 141, 153, 102 S. Ct. 3014 , 3022 (1982). The plain langu ag e of the Standard Policy , w hich is em bodi ed in a feder al reg ul at io n, re fle ct s a c le ar i nt en t t o p reem pt cla im s u nd er s ta te law: IX
. Wha t L awG ove rn s T his pol ic y

a nd a ll dis put es a ri sin g fr om the ha ndl ing of a ny c la im under th e p ol i c y

a r e g ov e rne d e xc l us i ve l y b y t he f l oo d i ns ur a nc e re gul at ion s is sue d by

F E MA , the N at ion al F loo d I nsur an ce A ct of 196 8, as am en de d (4 2 U.S.C. 4 00 1, et seq .), an d F ed eral co m m on law. 44 C
. F. R. § 61 , app. A (1 ), a rt
. I X ( em pha sis a dde d)
. T his pr ovi sio n be cam e ef fe ct ive
o n De c e mb e r

3 1 , 2 0 0 0 , b e f

o r e F i d e l i t y i s s u e dS h u f

o r d ’s p o l i c y. Whe n th e Fe de ra l E m er ge nc y Mana ge m en t A ge nc y

( “ FE MA ”) pr opos ed

the 2000 am en dm en t to the St an da rd Po lic y , the A ge nc y pr ovi de d asta te m en t of int en t tha t bo lst er s th e co nc lus iontha t S huf or d’ s st at e la w tor

t c la im is pr ee m pte d: St an da rd F loo d Insu ranc e Po lic ie s ar e sold by a num be r of pr iva te Wri te Y our

O w n ( W Y O ) ins ur an ce c om pa nie s a nd d ir ec tly

to the pub lic by the Fed eral I nsur an ce A dm ini str at ion
. B ec au se the N at ion al F loo d In sur an ce P ro gr am

is na tio nal i n sc ope a nd a cc om pli she s anum

be r of program m atic m issio ns in addi tion to m aking aff or da bl e flood insu rance ge ne ra lly a va ila ble to the pub lic , the S FI P pr ovi de s that its te rm s c an not be a lte re d, va ri ed

or w ai ve d e xc ept bythe w ri tte n auth or ity of the Fe de ra l I nsuran ce Adm ini str at or . T he A dm ini str at or int en ds tha t the sam e b enefits should be available to insureds wherever the insured pr op ert y i s l oc at ed , or wh et he r th e p ol ic y is pu rch as edfro m

a W YO14

ins ur an ce c om

pa ny or f ro m the F ed er al G ove rn m en t. T hus, the re is a ne ed f or uni fo rm ity

in the int er

pr et at ion of

a nd s ta ndard s a

ppl ic ab le to the pol ic ie s a nd the ir

a dm ini str at ion
. T he re fo re , w e have c la ri fi ed the pol ic y langua ge pe rt ai nin g to j ur isd ic tio n, ve nue an d a ppl ic ab le law to em phasize tha t m at ters pertaining to the Standard Flood Insu rance Po lic y , inc lud ing iss ue s re la tin g to an d ar isi ng out of cl ai m s han dling, m ust be heard in Federal c ourt and are governed exclusively by Feder al l a w . 65 F ed
. Re g. 34, 824, 34, 826– 27 (M ay 31, 2000 ) (e m pha sis a dde d)
. I n th e lig ht o f the plain langu age of t h e 2 0 0 0 am endm ent and the statem ent of intent, Shuford’ s tort claim is expressly

preem pted by feder al lawbecause it ar ises from the handlin g of a cl ai m un de r a St an da rdPo li cy . D. The D istrict Cour t Did Not A buse Its Discretion W hen It De nied Shu

ford’s M oti on t o A lte r or

A m en d th e Sum m aryJ

udgm en t. Shuford argues that the district court abused its d iscretion when it denied her
m oti on u nde r Ru le 59( e) to al te r or am en d the sum m ar y j udgm en t be ca

use the int er pr et at ionby

the dis tr ic t c ourt of

the A dm ini str at or ’ s w ai ve r co nf lic te d w iththe standard pr ac tic e in the f

loo d c la im

a dj ust ing ind

ustry . S huf

or d ci te s ana ff

ida vit of Sc ott Mc Co ll, the c la im ad

j ust er , w ho te sti fi ed tha t the ind ustry ha d in te rp re te d th e A dm ini str at or ’ s w ai ve r to m ean th at apr oof of los s w as no l onge r re qui re d. Mc Co ll te sti fi ed tha t the a dj ust er ’ s r ep ort w as apr oof of los s a nd a

pol ic yhol de r ne ed

not f ile
an oth er pr oof of los s. W e re j e c t S hu fo rd ’ s a rg um en t ontw o gr ound s. F ir st, the dis tr ic t c ourt c or re ct ly15

de cl ine d to co nsi de r Mc Co ll’ s a ff ida vit be ca use S huf or d f ai le d to sub m it the a ff

ida vit in h er oppo sit ion to the m oti on f or sum m ar y j udgm en t. “ [W ] he re apa rty a tte m pts to introdu ce pre viou sly

unsub m itted evidence on a m otion to reconsi der, the court shou ld n ot g rant the m oti on a bse nt s om e show ing tha t the e vid en ce w as not a va ila ble dur ing the pe nde nc y

of the m oti on. ” May s, 122 F
. 3d a t 46
. S huf or d a rg ue s th at

she
c o u l d n o t h a v e o b t a i n e d t h e a f f i d a v i t i n t i m e f

o r i n c l u s i o n i n h e r o p p o s i t i on t o th e
m oti on f or sum m ar y j udgm en t be ca

use she w as not

pr ovi de d su ff

ic ie nt tim e fo r dis co ve ry , but

S huf or d’ s m oti on for

le av e to c ondu ct

li m ite d di sc ove ry

did not
m ention a need to interpret the m eaning of the Adm inistrator’ s waiver
. Second, e ven if the dis tr ic t c ourt had co nsi de re d the af fi da vit , the co urt w oul d no t have abuse d it s dis cr et ion by de ny ing Sh uf or d’ s m oti on to a lte r or

a m en d th e j udgm en t, be ca use the district court applied th e plain language of the Adm inistrator’ s waiver
. IV. C ONC LUS ION Th e su m m ar y ju d g m en t i n fa v o r o f F i d el i t y an dt h e o rd er s d en yin g Sh u fo rd ’s
m oti on f or le av e to con duc t lim ite d disc ove ry , dis m iss ing Sh uf or d’ s tort cla im on the ground that it was pree m

pted by feder al law , and deny ing Shuford’s m otion to alter
or am end the grant of summ ary j udgm ent are AF FIRMED
.16