Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Wayne and Doris Gularte sought additional payment for structural flood damage after their insurer partially denied their claim in June 2023. They did not sue until December 2025, and the insurer moved to dismiss under the National Flood Insurance Act’s one-year deadline.
The ruling addresses the dispute at its current procedural stage and does not resolve issues the court expressly left for later proceedings.
The Court’s Holding
The court dismissed the second amended complaint. The limitations period began when the insurer gave written notice that it would not pay part of the claim, not when later communications repeated or explained that position. Because the federal deadline governs claims under a standard flood policy, the suit was untimely and further amendment would not cure the problem.
The result follows from the governing pleading, jurisdictional, or merits standard applied to the record before the court.
Key Takeaways
- Policyholders disputing a National Flood Insurance Program adjustment should treat the first written partial denial as the trigger.
- Continuing negotiations or requests for reconsideration generally do not restart the one-year clock.
- Practitioners should preserve the documents and technical evidence needed to prove the rule applies to the client’s specific facts.
Why It Matters
Policyholders disputing a National Flood Insurance Program adjustment should treat the first written partial denial as the trigger. Continuing negotiations or requests for reconsideration generally do not restart the one-year clock.
The decision is unreported and may be persuasive rather than binding, but it offers a current view of how a Northern District of California judge is applying these rules.