Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 30028

TH RAC E B. NO RM AN ; M
. LI ZABETH TALBOTT P l a i n ti ff-A p p ell ee -C ross -A p p ell a n t v. FI DELI TYNATI ONAL I NSURANCE COM PA NY D efen da n t
- A pp el l an t
- C ross - A pp el l ee

A pp eal s f

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rtf or t h e Eas t e r n Di s t r i c to f

Lo ui s i ana 2: 07- C V

- 4438

B ef ore G A R W O O D , D AV IS, an d D E N N IS, C i rcui tJu dg es . W
. E U G E N E D AV IS, C i rcui tJu dg e: * Thi s a ppe ala nd c r o s s - ap pe alr e vo l ve a r o und t he q ue s t i o n o f w he t he rt he i n sured m u stfi l e a stat u t ori l y requ i red proof of l oss ( “ P O L ” ) to r ecover un der a St and ar d Fl o o d I ns ur anc e Po l i c y ( “ SFI P” )

. W e a ns w e rt hi s q ue s t i o n in t he
a ffir m a tiv e a n d fo rth e re a s o n s s ta te d b e lo w , w e A F F IR M in p a r t, VA C A T E in p a r t, a n d R E N D E R ju d g m e n t in fa v o ro f F id e lity
. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December

8, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 30028

Fidelityis a Write Your Own (“WYO”) Program C arri er p articipating inth e U.S

. 1 Government’s NFIPpursuant toth e Nation al Flood In surance Act of 19 68. The WYO program allow s partic ipat ing prop erty and casualt y ins uranc e com pani esto writeand service theSFIP in their ownn ames. Th e co mpani es re ceive an expense allowanc e forp ol ic ie s writte n and cl aim s p ro ce sse d whil e th e F ed er al Govern me nt retain s res po n sib ilityf orun de rwritin glos se s. FEMA – Answ ers t o Q u e s t i ons About the NFIP, http://www.fema.gov/business/nfip/intnfip.shtm#6W(la stvis it edNov . 1 9 , 2 0 0 9).

Policyrates are determined, in part , by the Flood In surance R ate Map (FIRM). When 2 ac on structio ni s b uilt prior toth e pub licationof af lo odr atemap, th e policyi s r ate d a s a prefirm policy. If th e construction is built after the publication of a flood map, it is rated a s ap os tf ir m p olicy . Prefirmp re miu ms arelow erth a np os tf ir m p re miu ms. Nor man’ s propertywas atwo story“raised shotgun doub le” home. Normanlive d 3 upstairs onth e sec ond floor ; th e first flo or h ad o nce bee n an apartment, but at the time of the storm it was beingu sed forstora ge . Accordingto testimony, the first floor was un der two feet of water followin g Hurric aneKatrina. As a result of this flooding , th e interior walls, electrical fixture s, an d various pi eces of Norman’ s person al property were da maged. 2 I. Pl ai nt i f f

- A ppel l ee Th r ac e N or m an ( “ N or m an” ) i s t he h ol derof a N at i onal F l oo d In su ra n ce P l a n ( “N F IP ”) S F IP p u r c h a sed f rom the de fen d a n t, F i d eli ty N ati on alI n suran ce, C o. ( “ F i del i t y”)

. Th e pol i cy cover ed N orm an ’ s t w o- st ory 1 property i n N ew O rl ean s. A tt h e t i m e t h e pol i cy w as i ssued , i tw as rat e d as a po s t f i r m po l i cy a nd s pe c i f i c al l y s t at e d t hatt he r e w as “ no b as e m e nt ” i n t he 2 pro per t y. H u rri can e K atr i n a st ruck N ew O rl ean s on A u gu st29, 2 005 a n d d am aged N orm an ’ s property. N orm an f i l ed a cl ai m f

or f l ood-r el ated d a m ages 3 ap proxi m atel y f

i ve da ys a f

t er the st orm . O n N ovem ber 1 , 2 005 , a f l ood adj u st er i n sp ected on l y th e ex terior of N orm a n ’ s p rop erty
. O n D ece m b er 4 , 20 0 5 , F i d eli ty
s e n tNo r ma n a c h e c k f o r$ 1 0 , 6 9 7
. 6 8 t o c o v e rt h e a dj u s t e d e x t e r i o r d a ma g e . O n F ebru ary 9, 20 0 7 , a di f ferent adj u st er, R obertB on ka , i n spect ed the i n t eri or of N o r m an’ s f

i r s t f l o o r ar e a, ac c o unt i ng f o r i t s c o nt e nt s . Bonka de t e rm i n ed t he adj ust ed v al ue o w ed t o N or m an for th e f i r stf l oo ri nt er i orand c ont ent s t o b e $2, 480
. 90. O n A pri l3, 200 7, F i del i t y sent N orm an a ch eck f or $4 19. 80 t o cover t h e adj u st ed i n t eri or and contents dam age.N o. 09- 30028

3 O n M ar c h 2 6, 2 00 7, Fi de l i t y r e t r o ac t i ve l y c hang e d N o r m an’ s po l i c y r at i ng t o a p r e f

i r m p o l i c y . Th e r e a s o n f o rt he c ha ng e , a c c o r d i ngt o Fi d e l i t y , was t hat t he o r i gi nalpos t f

i r m r at i ng w as i nco r r ec t
. The c hange i n f i r m r at i ng m eantt hat N o r m an o ve r pa i d hi s pr e m i um s , s o Fi de l i t y r e i m bur s e d hi m f o rt he a m o unthe overpa i d. A tt h e sam e tim e, N orm an ’ s propert y descri pti on w as al so re t r o ac t ive l y c hang e d f r o m s t at i n g “ n o basem en t ” t o st ati n g “basem en tencl osure u n fi n i sh ed
. ” O n A pri l27, 2007, N or m an f i l ed s ui tagai nstFi del i t y c l ai m i ng t hat F i de l i t y br e ac he d i t s c o nt r ac t w i t h N o r m an by fai l i ng t o pr o pe r l y adj u st N orm a n ’ s cl a i m . S p ecif i ca lly , N orm a n all eg ed tha t t h e $ 1 0 , 6 9 7
. 6 8 alon g w i th t h e $41 9. 80 pai d by F i del i t y w as on l y a f ract i on of t h e t ot al d a m a g e sust ai n ed t o t he pr ope r t y f

ol l ow i ng t he hurr i c ane. Pri ort o f i l i ng s u i t, h ow eve r , N or m an di d n otsu bm i ta P O L to F i del i t y i n accor da n ce w i t h t h e SF IP. Fidel i t y argu ed t o t he di s t r i c tco ur tt hatN o r m an’ s fai l ur e t o f i l e a PO L r e l i e ve d Fi de l i t y o f a ny ob l i ga ti on i t ow ed N orm a n . In re sp on se, N orm a n con ten d ed th a t F i d eli ty repu di ated t h e pol i cy on M arch 26, 200 7. A ccor di n g t o N orm an , w h en t h e f i rm rat i n g an d ba se m e n t d escr i pti on w ere al t ered, F i del i t y repu di ated t h e pol i cy t hu s r e l i e v i ngNor m a n f r o m f i l i nga POL. A t t ri a l , N orm a n eli ci ted ex p ert testi m on y th a t t h e to ta lda m a ge to N orm an ’s property w as app roxi m atel y $68 , 000
. N evert h el ess, t h e di st ri ctcourt
r ul e d i n fa v o ro f

Fi d e l i t y , h o l d i ngt ha t , b e c a us e N or m a n fa i l e d t o f i l e a POL, N orm a n w a s n ot en ti tl ed to an y p a ym en t b y F i d eli ty a b ov e th e a m ou n t F i d eli ty det er m i ned he w as ow ed. H ow eve r , th e di st r i c tc our tf ound t hatN or m an w as en ti tl ed to t h e full a m ou n t B on k a d eterm i n ed N orm a n w a s ow ed f or th e con ten ts of t h e f i rstf l oor area. A ccor di n gl y, t h e c ou rtentered j u dg m en ti n favor of N orm a n f

or$2, 061. 10 r epr es ent i ng t he di f fer enc e b et w ee n t he $2, 480. 90 adj ust m e ntB onka det er m i ned w as t he am ount ow ed t o N or m an and t he $419. 80 Fi del i t y pai d t o N or m an on A pri l3, 2007.N o. 09- 30028

4 N orm an f

i l ed a ti m el y ap pea la rguing that Fidel i t y repu di ated t h e pol i cy an d theref

ore no P O L ha d to be f i l ed. T h u s, N orm an argu e d , t h e di st ri ctcourt erred i n ref

u sing to aw ard h i m f or t h e t ot all oss of

t h e property. Fidel i t y al so t i m e l y ap pe al e d, a r gui ng t hat t he di s t r i c t c o ur t e r r e d i n awar di ng N o r m an t he addi t i onal$2, 061. 10. W e di sc uss N or m an’ s a p p ealand Fi del i t y’ s appeal
s e p a r a te lyb e lo w .
II. N or m an ar gues t hatt he di st r i c tc our ter r ed i n co n cl udi ng t hathe w as r e q ui r e d t o f

i l e a POL. T h e fl oo d p oli cya t issu e i n th i s ca se w a s a D w ell i n g F orm S F IP , i ssu ed to N or m a n b y Fi del i t y and c odi f i ed under44 C. F. R
. § 61, A pp. A ( 1)

. U nder44 C

. F. R
. § 6 1
. 1 3 , t he h o l d e ro f a SF I P m us tc o m p l ywi t h t he t e r m s o f t he SF I P. The SFI P c o nt ai ns a re qui r e m e ntt hatt he i ns ur e d m u stf i l e a P O L w i th i n si xty days af t er t he l os s has oc c urr ed. A r t i c l e V I I (J) ( 4) 44 C

. F. R
. Pt
. 61 App. A ( 1)

. S ee D w yer v. Fi d

. Nat’

lProp. & Cas. I

n s. Co. , 565 F. 3d 2 8 4 , 2 8 7 (5t h C i r . 2009) ( di st i n gu i shi n g betw een t h e proof of l oss cl au se of

t h e SF IP that uses t h e w ord

“ m us t ” a nd t h e a pp rai sa lc l aus e o f t he SFI P t hatus e s t he w o r d “ m ay” a nd f i ndi ng t he f

or m eri s m andat or y butt he l at t eri s opt i onal)

. T he Fi f t h C i r c ui thas consi st en t l y h el d that w h en t h e i n sured fai l s to f i l e a P O L , t h e i n surer i s r el i eved
o f its o b lig a tio n to p a y a n o th e r w is e v a lid c la im
. Mar s e i l l e s Ho m e o w ne r s Condo Ass ’ n v . Fi d. Nat ’l I

ns . C o. , 5 4 2 F .3 d 1 0 5 3 , 1 0 5 5

– 5 6 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ); Wr ightv. A l lst ateI

n s. Co. , 4 1 5 F .3d 3 8 4 , 3 8 7 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); G o w l and v . Ae t na , 143 F. 3d 9 5 3 , 9 5 4 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). T h ere are som e e x ce p tion s t o t h e requi rem en tt h at a PO L be f i l ed. Sec. 61. 13(d) st ates t h at t h e F ederalIn suran ce A dm i n i st rat or m ay p rovi de exp ress w ri t t en consent t o al t er, vary, or w ai ve t h e S F IP . T h u s, i n case of an express al t e r at i o n, v ari ati on , o rw aive r , a PO L ne e d no tb e f i l e d. Addi t i o nal l y, t heN o. 09- 30028

5 F ou rt h C i rcui tha s hel d that f i l i n g a P O L i s un n e ce ssary i f t h e i n surer repu di ates t h e policy b e f ore t h e i n sured w as obl i gated to f i l e a proof

of l oss. S t u d i o Fram es v. S t d

. Fi re Ins. Co. , 3 6 9 F .3 d 3 7 6 (4 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). S i n c e N o r m a n f

i l ed n o P O L , the qu estion be fore th i s cou rt na rrow s to
w h eth er N orm a n esta b l i sh ed a n a p p l i ca b l e exce p ti on to th e requ i rem en t t h a t a P O L b e fi l ed. I n t hi s c as e, no e xc ept i on t o t he PO L f i l i ng r equi r em entw as est abli shed
. I ti s u n di spu t ed t h at t h ere w as no alt erat i on , vari ati on , or w ai ver o f th e S F IP
. T h e r e fo r e , § 6 1 .1 3 (d ) d o e s n o t a p p ly
. D espi t e N orm an ’ s asser t i on t h at Fi de li tyre p u d ia te d th e co n tra ct , w e agree
w i th the distri ct cou rt t h a t r ep u d i a ti on did n ot tak e p l a ce. U n d er th e F ou rth Ci r c ui t ’ s a nal ys i s i n S t u d i o Fram es t hatN o r m an as ks t hi s c o ur t t o ap pl y, t he
co u rtprovi ded t h e f ol l ow i n g gu i da n ce i n deter m i n i n g w h et h er t h e i n surer rep u d i a ted a co n tract:
Fi r s t , i n de t e r m i ni ng w he t he r[ t he de fe nda nt
- i ns ur e r ] r e pud i at e d a term of th e con tract, the distri ct cou rt sh ou l d be a r i n m i n d tha t a ref u sed perf

orm an ce “ n eed n ot be exp ress or depen den ton ‘ spok en w or ds’al one; i tm ay r es ton a def endant ’ s c onductev i denc i ng a c l ear i n ten ti on ‘ to refu se p erform a n ce in th e futu re.’” S eco n d , f or th ere to be r epudi at i on o f

a c ont r ac t , t he di st r i c tc our tm ustc onc l ude t hat t he c ont r ac tw as bi ndi ng on the part y re f usi ng t o pe r f

or m , i
. e. , t hat [t h e defen d a n t- i n su rer] w a s m i stak en i n i ts b eli ef th a t th e S F IP for b a d e it fro m o ffer in g b u il d in g co v e ra g e to [th e p la in tiff-in su re d ]. Apar t y to a co nt r ac tdoe s notr epudi at e i t s obl i gat i ons under t hat contractby ref

u si n g t o do t h at w h i ch the contr actf orbi ds i tf

rom doi n g. And t hi r d, i f i ti s de t e r m i ne d t hat[ t he de fe nda nt
- i ns urer ] w as bou n d t o provi de bui l di n g coverage un der t h e contr act , i tm u st be det e r m i ne d whe t he ri t s r e f us a lt o p e r f

o r m t ha to b l i g a t i o n w as u n e q u iv o c a l a n d w e n t t o th e “v e r ye s s e n c e o f th e co n tr a c t.”
Id

. a t 3 8 3 (c ita tio n s o m itt e d ). F or t h e S t u d i o Fram es repu di ati on excepti on t o ap pl y, t h e i n sured m u st d em on strate tha t t h e insu rer o w es th e insu red cov era ge tha t i t ref u s e d toN o. 09- 30028

6 p r o v id e . Id

. I n t hi s c as e , Fi de l i t y di d no tde ny N o r m an c o ve r ag e . On t he
c o nt r ar y, F i del i t y ad m i t t e d i n o pe n c o ur tt hatN o r m an hadc o ve r ag e . The di spu t e betw een F i del i t y an d N orm an revol ves aroun d the am ou n tof l oss, not t h e coverage i t sel f

. A s s u ch, F i del i t y di d n otrepud i ate t h e contr a ct. B ecau se t h ere w as n o repu di ati on , N orm an w as requir ed to f i l e a P O L
. N orm an di d n ot t i m e l y f i l e a P O L; t he r e f

o r e F i de l i t y i s r e l i e ve d o f a ny o bl i ga t i o n t o pa y N o r m an.
III. F i del i t y ap pea l s t h e di st r i c tc o urt ’ s order aw ardi n g N orm an t h e di f ference be t w e e n t he am o unt Fi de l i t y’ s adj us t e r s t at e d N o r m an w as o w e d and t he s um F i del i t y act u al l y pa i d N orm an . W e agree w i t h F i del i t y t h at t h e di st ri ctcourt
e r r e d in a w a r d in gN o r m a n th e a d d itio n a l $ 2 ,0 6 1 .1 0
. T h e NF I P i s a fe d e r a l l y - a d mi n i s t e r e d p r o g r a m s u p p o r t e d b yf u n d s d r a wn f r om t he f

ede r alt r eas ury. G o w l and v . Ae t na , 1 4 3 F .3d 9 5 1
. 9 5 5 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ). P aym en t s m ad e pu rsuan tt o a pol i cy un derw ri t t en by the N F IP are a dir ect
c h a r g e o n th e p u b lic tr e a s u r y . Id

. U nde rt he Appr o pr i at i o ns Cl aus e o f t he C o n s tit u tio n , “m o n e ym a yb e p a id o u t o n lyth r o u g h a n a p p r o p r ia tio n b yla w ; in ot herw or ds, t he paym en t of m oney f

r om t he Tre as ury m ustbe aut hor i ze d by statu te. ” Wrigh t v. A l lst ateI n s. Co. , 4 1 5 F. 3 d 3 8 4 , 3 8 7 ( 5 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 5 )

. 4 4 C. F. R. § 6 1
. 1 , e t s e q ., w h ich es ta b li sh e s th e ter m s o f th e S F IP , re q u ire s th e fi li n gof a PO L be f o r e t he i ns ur e d c an r e c e i ve pa ym e nto n hi s c l ai m . Appl yi ng t he a n a ly s is i n Wr ig h t to this cas e, a cou rt m a y n ot ord er p a ym en t of f u n d s f rom the N F IP
w hen t he r equi r em ent s of t he s t at ut e have notbe en m et
. B ecau se N or m an fai l ed t o f

i l e a PO L, t he di st r i c tc our ter r ed i n aw ar di ng N or m an t he addi t i onal $ 2 ,0 6 1 .1 0
.N o. 09- 30028

7 CO NCL US I ON F o r th e a bove reason s, w e A F F IR M t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s r ej ect i on of N orm an ’ s $68, 000
. 00 cl ai m againstF i del i t y f or f l ood d am age to hi s hom e; ho w e ve rw e VA CA TE t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s a w ar d o f $ 2, 06 1. 10 repres e nt i ng t he di f ference betw een t h e am ou n tF i del i t y pa i d and t he a m o untt h e adj u st er of fered f or c on t en t s dam age; w e t h erefor e R E N D E R a t ak e nothi n g j u dg m en ti n favor of Fi del i t y.