The court found that when considered as a whole, separately filed proofs of loss and estimates of damage were sufficient to meet the requirements of a flood policy. Young v. Imperial Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51863 (April 15, 2014).
On August 29, 2012, plaintiffs' property sustained flood damage due to Hurricane Isaac. After Imperial's adjustor inspected the property, advance payments were made for $5000 under the building coverage and $5000 under the contents coverage.
On October 26, 2012, the plaintiffs' adjustor submitted a proof of loss for building damages, stating the amount of loss was $175,100, which was the policy limit minus the deductible. The insured wife signed the proof of loss. The actual case value, full cost of replacement or repair, and applicable depreciation were listed "undetermined."
A public adjustor retained by the plaintiffs sent an estimate of damage to Imperial on November 13, 2012. The total amount of damage was estimated to be $260,635.83. The public adjustor sent another proof of loss to Imperial on November 16, 2012, stating it was a revised proof of loss. The claim was $175,100, which was the policy limit of building coverage minus the deductible. The proof of loss stated the full costs of repair or replacement was $260,235.83. The form stated the actual cost value and the applicable depreciation were undetermined.
Imperial's adjustor issued his final report on November 19, 2012, recommending that Imperial pay plaintiffs $52,437.37 for damage to the building and $13,161.85 for contents. Imperial issued two checks to plaintiffs, one for $52,161.05 and the second for $8,161.85.
On November 26, 2012, plaintiffs' adjustor submitted another proof of loss for building damages. The claim was for $175,100, which was the policy limit of building coverage minus the deductible. The proof of loss stated that the full cost of repair or replacement was $260,235.83. It again stated the actual cost value and applicable depreciation were undetermined. The form was dated and signed by plaintiff wife.
Imperial then informed plaintiffs that the proof of loss was rejected because it did not comply with the Standard Flood Insurance Policy (SFIP) requirements. Plaintiffs sued and Imperial filed for summary judgment. The court denied Imperial's motion.
Although it was undisputed that plaintiffs submitted three signed, sworn proofs of loss for building damage with detailed estimates of damages, Imperial argued the submissions were inadequate because the detailed estimate was not submitted with a signed proof of loss form and the estimate was not separately signed and sworn by plaintiffs.
The court found that all of the plaintiffs' proof of loss forms, taken together with their adjustor's estimate, constituted a completed proof of loss that complied with the SFIP. The forms clearly stated that plaintiffs' cost of repair was $260,235.83, and the claim was policy limits on building coverage, minus the deductible, which was $175,100.
