Opinion ID: 1193444
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Underlying Purpose/State Law Claim

Text: The third and fourth Cort questions are relevant only if the answers to the first two indicate congressional intent to create a private remedy. [30] As we find no congressional intent to allow extra-contractual claims in flood insurance cases, it is unnecessary for us to address the last two questions of the Cort test. If we were to do so, however, the answers to the third and fourth questions would not change our conclusion. The third question of the Cort test asks whether creating a cause of action would be consistent with the underlying purpose of the legislation. We have already determined that the overarching purpose of the NFIA is to relieve the burden on the federal treasury caused by flood damage. Subjecting the government to extra-contractual claims on flood insurance policies would increase rather than confine the burdens on the federal government and the federal fisc that the NFIA was created to mitigate. Inferring a private right of action would run counter to the underlying purpose of the Act. The last Cort question, which recognizes that it may be inappropriate to infer a cause of action based solely on federal law when a state law remedy exists, [31] is not applicable in this case, because the NFIA preempts state law claims that arise under federal flood insurance policies. [32]