Editors Note: Steven A. Meyerowitz, Esq., is the Director of FC&S Legal and the Editor-in-Chief of the Insurance Coverage Law Report. He can be reached at [email protected]. FC&S Legal, like National Underwriter Property & Casualty and PropertyCasualty360.com are products of Summit Professional Networks.
A federal district court in Connecticut has denied a homeowner's attempt to sue the insurance agent who sold him a standard flood insurance policy for misrepresentation, ruling that the homeowner was “charged with the knowledge of the terms and conditions of his coverage under his SFIP,” and that any claim against the agent alone was “futile.”
The Case
After Moshe Azoulay sued Allstate Insurance Company, alleging it improperly had denied a claim for damages to his Westport, Conn. residence caused by Tropical Storm Irene in August 2011, he moved to amend his complaint to add as a defendant the Allstate insurance agent who had sold him the SFIP.
The homeowner claimed the agent had “assured” him that if his property was flooded, “the damages inside and outside of [his] home would be covered under that insurance” and that the agent had “misrepresented to the [homeowner] the extent of his coverage.”
Allstate opposed the motion, asserting that the proposed amendment to add its agent was futile under the law governing the homeowner's participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The Court's Decision
The court denied the homeowner's motion to amend the complaint, saying insureds with coverage under SFIPs have a duty to know the details of these policies regardless of misrepresentations allegedly made by the insurer and its agents, because the policies are codified under federal law, thereby giving policyholders constructive notice of the terms.
Accordingly, despite the alleged representations of Allstate's agent, the homeowner was “charged with the knowledge of the terms and conditions of his coverage under his SFIP,” and any claim against the agent alone was “futile,” the court concluded.
The case is Azoulay v. Allstate Ins. Co. in U.S. District Court in Connecticut.
FC&S Legal Comment
Other circuit and district courts also have held that NFIP insureds may not reasonably rely on representations by an agent or broker, as the provisions of the SFIP are controlling.
Want to continue reading?
Become a Free PropertyCasualty360 Digital Reader
Your access to unlimited PropertyCasualty360 content isn’t changing.
Once you are an ALM digital member, you’ll receive:
- Breaking insurance news and analysis, on-site and via our newsletters and custom alerts
- Weekly Insurance Speak podcast featuring exclusive interviews with industry leaders
- Educational webcasts, white papers, and ebooks from industry thought leaders
- Critical converage of the employee benefits and financial advisory markets on our other ALM sites, BenefitsPRO and ThinkAdvisor
Already have an account? Sign In Now
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.