44 C.F.R. § 61.6
Maximum amounts of coverage available
(a) Pursuant to section 1306 of the Act, the following are the limits of coverage available under the emergency program and under the regular program.
| Occupancy | Emergency Program | Regular Program |
|---|---|---|
| Amount | Amount | |
| Building Coverage | ||
| Single-Family Dwelling | * $35,000 | $250,000. |
| Two-to-Four Family Building | * 35,000 | $250,000. |
| Other Residential Building (including Multifamily Building) | ** 100,000 | $500,000. |
| Residential Condominium Building | N/A | $250,000 times the number of units in the building. |
| Non-Residential Building | 100,000 | $500,000. |
| Contents Coverage 2 | ||
| Residential Property 3 | 10,000 | $100,000. |
| Non-Residential Property | 100,000 | $500,000. |
| 1 This Table provides the maximum coverage amounts available under the Emergency Program and the Regular Program, and the columns cannot be aggregated to exceed the limits in the Regular Program, which are established by statute. The aggregate limits for building coverage are the maximum coverage amounts allowed by statute for each building included in the relevant Occupancy Category. | ||
| 2 The policy limits for contents coverage are not per building. Although a single insured may not have more than one policy covering contents in a building, several insureds may have separate policies of up to the policy limits. | ||
| 3 The Residential Property occupancy category includes the Single-Family Dwelling, Two-to-Four Family Building, Other Residential Building, and Condominium Building occupancies categories. | ||
| * In Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, and U.S. Virgin Islands, the amount available is $50,000. | ||
| ** In Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, and U.S. Virgin Islands, the amount available is $150,000. | ||
(b) Coverage and benefits payable under the SFIP pursuant to § 61.3(b) and (c) are included in, not in addition to, the coverage limits provided by the Act or stated in paragraph (a) of this section.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 2003–2014 · leading case: Kolbe v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP
Kolbe v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (2012)
“16a; 44 C.F.R. § 61.6 . Kolbe's complaint states that he purchased coverage in an unspecified amount in excess of the minimum.”
Degutis v. Financial Freedom, LLC (2013)
“§§ 4012a(b)(l), *1258 4013(b)(2); 44 C.F.R. § 61.6 (b); see Audler v. CBC Innovis Inc.”
Faire Feaz v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2014)
“44 C.F.R. § 61.6 . When the FHA guarantees a mortgage loan for a home located in a designated special flood hazard area, HUD requires that the home be covered by flood insurance in “an amount at least equal to either the outstanding balance of the mortgage, *1102 less estimated…”
Kolbe v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (2013)
“16a; 44 C.F.R. § 61.6 . 33 . Although the meaning of Paragraph 4 is a question of federal law, we use New Jersey’s general framework for contract interpretation.”
Arnett v. Bank of America (2012)
“§ 4013 and 44 C.F.R. § 61.6 . . The Arnetts argue that even if BOA is a party to the contract, their unjust enrichment claim should not be dismissed because BOA’s "improper conduct .”
Custer v. Homeside Lending, Inc. (2003)
“[11] Pursuant to 44 C.F.R. § 61.6 , the maximum amount of coverage the NFIA permits for a single-family residence under the National Flood Insurance Program, a federally subsidized program that provides flood insurance, is $250,000.”
Kolbe v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (2012)
“16a; 44 C.F.R. § 61.6 . Kolbe’s complaint states that he purchased coverage in an unspecified amount in excess of the minimum.”
Studio Frames Ltd. v. Standard Fire Insurance (2007)
“At another point, however, the dissent relies on a footnote in a chart in FEMA’s regulations, 44 C.F.R. § 61.6 (a), that states that con- tents coverage limits are applied "per unit.”
Thomas v. Standard Fire Insurance (2006)
“See 44 C.F.R. § 61.6 (a) (2005). The SFIP includes four different areas of coverage: (1) Coverage A — Building Property; (2) Coverage B — Personal Property; (3) Coverage C — Other Coverages; and (4) Coverage D — Increased Cost of Compliance (“ICC”).”
Studio Frames Ltd. v. Standard Fire Insurance (2005)
“” 44 C.F.R. § 61.6 (2004). Thus, FEMA did not interpret the language “up to a total amount” to place an aggregate limit on the amount of building coverage available on multi-dwelling residential property.”
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.