William T. Clark, III v. Wright National Flood Insurance Company

Summary

The Fifth Circuit held that a proof of loss under a Standard Flood Insurance Policy (SFIP) must be either notarized or contain a declaration substantially similar to “I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct” to satisfy the “sworn to” requirement; substantial compliance is insufficient. Untimely supplemental proofs of loss cannot be considered alongside timely but noncompliant proofs of loss. Waiver and equitable estoppel are unavailable against the federal government in SFIP breach-of-contract claims, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying additional discovery on FEMA policies. The court affirmed summary judgment for the insurer because the plaintiffs failed to submit compliant proofs of loss.

Holdings

1. The SFIP's sworn-to requirement requires either notarization or a declaration substantially similar to 'I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.' The 2016 POLs did not satisfy this requirement.
2. The 2018 POLs were untimely because they were filed after FEMA's extended deadlines, and untimely supplemental POLs may not be considered along with timely but noncompliant POLs.
3. Waiver is not available because no provision of the SFIP may be altered or waived without the express written consent of the Federal Insurance Administrator. Estoppel is not available because the judiciary cannot uphold estoppel claims against the federal treasury.
4. The district court did not abuse its discretion because the requested discovery would not affect the outcome of the summary judgment motion.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the 2016 POLs satisfied the SFIP's sworn-to requirement.
2. Whether the January and February 2018 POLs were timely.
3. Whether waiver and estoppel arguments are available against the SFIP's requirements.
4. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying additional discovery.

Disposition

affirmed