Rodriguez-Roble v. Property
| Decision Date | 23 September 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 14–CA–938.,14–CA–938. |
| Citation | 176 So.3d 660 |
| Parties | Louis RODRIGUEZ–ROBLE and Marisol Soto–Ayala v. AMERICAN NATIONAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COMPANY. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Ivan A. Orihuela, Attorney at Law, Kenner, LA, for Plaintiff/Appellant.
Kim Tran Britt, Gerald J. Nielsen, William T. Treas, Attorneys at Law, Metairie, LA, for Defendant/Appellee.
Appellants, Louis Rodriguez–Roble and Marisol Soto–Ayala, appeal the trial court's judgment granting the exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction filed by appellee, American National Property and Casualty Company (“ANPAC”). For the following reasons, we affirm.
Appellants filed a petition for damages alleging on or about August 28, 2012, their property located at 80 Ridgewood Drive in Laplace, Louisiana, sustained wind, rain and flood water damage during Hurricane Isaac. Appellants sued ANPAC under Policy No. 9901262282012, which is a flood insurance policy. Appellants contend they provided satisfactory proof of their claim, but ANPAC failed to make any offers to resolve this claim. As a result, appellants filed this lawsuit seeking damages under their policy, as well as penalties for ANPAC's
alleged bad faith and unreasonableness in failing to make an offer to settle or pay their claim.
In response to appellants' petition, ANPAC Louisiana Insurance Company filed an exception of no right of action seeking dismissal of the claims against it on the grounds that appellants sued ANPAC Louisiana Insurance Company in its capacity as a homeowner's insurer.1ANPAC Louisiana Insurance Company claimed it did not issue a homeowner's policy to appellants. The trial court granted the exception of no right of action and dismissed appellants' claims against both ANPAC Louisiana Insurance Company and appellee, ANPAC, in their capacity as alleged homeowners' insurers. The trial court further allowed appellants time to amend their petition to name their flood insurance carrier. Appellants filed a first supplemental and amending petition indicating their intent to sue appellee, ANPAC “in its capacity as flood insurer.”
In response to the supplemental and amending petition, ANPAC filed an exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction in its “fiduciary capacity as a fiscal agent of the United States” and as a “Write–Your–Own Program carrier participating in the U.S. Government's National Flood Insurance Program” (“NFIP”). ANPAC argued the state court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because under the NFIP, federal courts enjoy exclusive jurisdiction over the denial and adjustment of flood insurance claims. In support of its exception, ANPAC attached a copy of flood policy declarations for Policy No. 99012628182012 which insured appellants' home when it sustained damage as a result of Hurricane Isaac.
In their opposition brief, appellants objected to the flood policy declaration presented by ANPAC because it was not a certified copy and it listed the former
owner of the property, Peggy Ann Badeaux, as the insured, rather than appellants.2During oral argument heard on September 12, 2014, ANPAC's counsel indicated he was providing the trial court with an additional flood policy declarations page which listed appellants' names. However, it does not appear the trial court formally entered this document into evidence.
Following oral argument, the trial court took the matter under submission and on September 24, 2014, the trial court issued a judgment sustaining appellee's exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The judgment included a section entitled “Discussion,” wherein the trial court explained that it sustained the exception because appellants' “claims arising against ANPAC, which operates under the Write Your Own (“WYO”) Program, are governed by federal law which has original exclusivejurisdiction.” The trial court also dismissed appellants' arguments objecting to the flood policy declarations page on the grounds the document adequately identified the insured property which is the subject of this litigation.
On appeal, appellants set forth eight assignments of error. The majority of these assignments of error, as well as the entire argument section of their brief, focus on appellants' position that ANPAC failed to introduce sufficient evidence to establish their flood insurance policy is part of a “federal program” that creates exclusive subject matter jurisdiction in the federal courts. Appellants further claim, ipse dixit,the state court has concurrent jurisdiction over their claims against the appellee. Additionally, appellants completely fail to address whether the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over their claims against appellee.
The NFIP, created under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, provides coverage for property losses resulting from flood damage. See Gowland v. Aetna,143 F.3d 951, 953 (5th Cir.1998). The Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) operates the program and issues policies either directly to insureds or through private insurers such as ANPAC. Id.All claims are paid directly from the federal treasury and policies are issued in the form of a Standard Flood Insurance Policy (“SFIP”). Id.;44 C.F.R. §§ 61.4(b), 61.13(d).
A person insured under and making a claim under such a policy is charged with constructive knowledge of the provisions of his particular SFIP and the NFIP, regardless of his actual knowledge of what is in the regulations and regardless of the hardship resulting from innocent ignorance. Worthen v. Fidelity Nat. Property and Cas. Ins. Co.,463 Fed.Appx. 422, 424 (5th Cir.2012). In fact, in Miller v. American Bankers Insurance Group,85 F.Supp.2d 1297, 1301 (S.D.Fla.4/30/99), the court recognized because a flood insurance policy is codified under federal law, an insured is charged with knowledge of a flood insurance policy's contents even if the insured never received a copy of the policy.
Furthermore, Louisiana state and federal courts have both recognized the National Flood Insurance Act and regulations governing an SFIP both provide federal courts with exclusive jurisdiction over disputes regarding the denial and adjustment of flood claims. See42 U.S.C. § 40723and 44 C.F.R. Pt. 61, App. A(1), ...
To continue reading
Request your trial