44 C.F.R. § 61.5
Deductibles
FEMA must provide policyholders with deductible options in various amounts, up to and including $10,000, subject to the following minimum deductible amounts:
(a) The minimum deductible for policies covering pre-FIRM buildings charged less than full-risk rates with building coverage amounts less than or equal to $100,000 is $1,500.
(b) The minimum deductible for policies covering pre-FIRM buildings charged less than full-risk rates with building coverage amounts greater than $100,000 is $2,000.
(c) The minimum deductible for policies covering post-FIRM buildings and pre-FIRM buildings charged full risk rates, with building coverage amounts equal to or less than $100,000 is $1,000.
(d) The minimum deductible for policies covering post-FIRM buildings and pre-FIRM buildings charged full risk rates, with building coverage amounts greater than $100,000 is $1,250.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1981–2024 · leading case: Remund v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
Remund v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (2012)
“As part of the foregoing scheme, and pertinently for this case, 44 C.F.R. § 61.5 (e) reads: The standard flood insurance policy is authorized only under terms and conditions established by Federal statute, the program’s regulations, the Administrator’s interpretations and the…”
Mahakali Krupa LLC v. Allstate Insurance Co (2015)
“5 The District Court held that Allstate could not be held liable for Purcell’s alleged misrepresentations as a matter of law, relying on 44 C.F.R. § 61.5 (e). Section 61.5(e) provides: The standard flood insurance policy is authorized only under terms and conditions established…”
Harry Spence and Nancy Spence Fortner v. Omaha Indemnity Insurance Company (1993)
“Effect of Misrepresentations by Whitney-Vaky and Yoakum Omaha next claims that 44 C.F.R. § 61.5 (i) absolves it from tort liability for any misrepresentations of Whitney-Vaky and Yoakum regarding coverage provided by the SFIP.”
Bull v. Allstate Insurance Co. (2009)
“They further contend that, even if the Bulls claims against Agent Fear were viable, they are not imputable to Allstate because of the structure of the National Flood Insurance Program (“NFIP”) and 44 C.F.R. § 61.5 (e) Allstate argues that the Bull’s own Statement of Uncontested…”
Carneiro Da Cunha v. Standard Fire Insurance (1997)
“5 (i) (1991) (now codified at 44 C.F.R. § 61.5 (e)) (‘‘The standard flood insurance policy is authorized only under terms and conditions established by Federal statute, the program’s regulations, the Administrator’s interpretations and the express terms of the policy itself.”
Reeder v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance (2006)
“*765 44 C.F.R. § 61.5 (e) (emphasis added). This argument has also been considered and rejected by at least two courts.”
Messa v. Omaha Property & Casualty Insurance (2000)
“44 C.F.R. § 61.5 (e)(1999); see Kennedy, 969 F.”
Padalino v. Standard Fire Insurance (2008)
“” 44 C.F.R. § 61.5 (e). Taken as a whole, these provisions “evincef ] an intent to prevent expansion of SFIP coverage through misrepresentations by private parties involved with the [NFIP], thereby protecting the government from expanded liability.”
Davis v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance (2011)
“§ 4081 (c); 44 C.F.R. § 61.5 (e); WYO Program Bull. No.”
Moffett v. Computer Sciences Corp. (2006)
“44 C.F.R. § 61.5 (e) (emphasis added). C.”
Forrest D. Criger v. General Julius W. Becton, Director of Federal Emergency Management Agency (1990)
“44 C.F.R. § 61.5 (f)(10) (1985); 44 C.F.R.”
Jamal v. Travelers Lloyds of Texas Insurance (2001)
“The court rejected the insurer’s argument that the provisions of 44 C.F.R. § 61.5 (i) absolved it from any liability for misrepresentations made by the agent.”
— 44 C.F.R. § 61.5(e) — 1 case
Mahakali Krupa LLC v. Allstate Insurance Co (2015)
“5 The District Court held that Allstate could not be held liable for Purcell’s alleged misrepresentations as a matter of law, relying on 44 C.F.R. § 61.5 (e). Section 61.5(e) provides: The standard flood insurance policy is authorized only under terms and conditions established…”
— 44 C.F.R. § 61.5(i) — 2 cases
Nelson Davis v. James Witt (1996)
Davis v. Witt (1996)
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.