The court found that the insurer properly denied the insured’s claim for loss due to flood because a proof of loss was never submitted. Bay Haven at Coco Bay Condominium Association, Inc. v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6847 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 14, 2026).

Bay Haven managed several condo buildings. When Hurricane Ian hit, it caused significant flood damage to these properties. Bay Haven held federal flood insurance policies through Hartford under “Write-Your-Own” policies. This meant Hartford was essentially a fiscal agent that managed policies and handled claims but paid them using federal funds.

Following the storm, FEMA extended the usual 60-day deadline for filing a proof of loss to one year, or until September 28, 2023. Bay Haven did not submit its proofs of loss until November 2023. FEMA granted an extension but only for the specific amounts in the November requests. Hartford did not waive the 60-day proof of loss requirement for any other proof of loss. Hartford paid the amounts reflected in the November submissions.

Bay Haven sued but admitted it never submitted a proof of loss for additional amounts before the November submissions. Instead, Bay Haven sent invoices, estimates and appeal letters to Hartford documenting the damages.

Hartford moved for summary judgment, arguing that without a sworn proof of loss for the additional money, Bay Haven had no claim.

Under the National Flood Insurance Program, private insurers (such as Hartford) acted not as traditional independent carriers, but as fiscal agents of the United States. They wrote the policies and processed the claims, but the federal government ultimately paid the bill. The standard flood policy imposed a clear and non-negotiable obligation on the insured to substantiate their claim. The policyholder had to submit a sworn proof of loss within 60 days of the flood event, or within any extended period granted by FEMA. Because this requirement was a regulatory condition precedent to recovery, an insured could not sue to recover money under the policy unless they had strictly complied with it.

Providing an insurer with all the information necessary to process a claim did not excuse the failure to submit a sworn proof of loss. Because Bay Haven failed to submit a sworn proof of loss for the additional damages it now sought, it failed to meet the conditions needed for payment.