42 U.S.C. § 4053

Adjustment and payment of claims; judicial review; limitations; jurisdiction

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar

The insurance companies and other insurers which form, associate, or otherwise join together in the pool under this part may adjust and pay all claims for proved and approved losses covered by flood insurance in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and, upon the disallowance by any such company or other insurer of any such claim, or upon the refusal of the claimant to accept the amount allowed upon any such claim, the claimant, within one year after the date of mailing of notice of disallowance or partial disallowance of the claim, may institute an action on such claim against such company or other insurer in the United States district court for the district in which the insured property or the major part thereof shall have been situated, and original exclusive jurisdiction is hereby conferred upon such court to hear and determine such action without regard to the amount in controversy.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 78 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: Paul Palmieri, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Allstate Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Paul Palmieri, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Allstate Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant (2006) ca2 · cites it 3× “Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Under § 4072 In their original briefs to this Court, both parties asserted that 42 U.S.C. § 4053 gives us jurisdiction over this case.”

Alex W. Newton v. Capital Assurance Company, Inc. (2001) ca11 · cites it 3× “§ 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 4053 . Following a bench trial, the court awarded Newton compensatory damages, prejudgment interest, and costs.”

Harper v. National Flood Insurers Ass'n (1980) pamd · cites it 5× “, in 42 U.S.C. § 4053 , which provides in pertinent part: • [Ujpon the disallowance by any such company or other insurer of any such claim, or upon the refusal of the claimant to accept the amount allowed upon any such claim, the claimant, within one year after the date of…”

Moore v. Allstate Insurance Co. (2000) alaska · cites it 3× “18 Suits against the insurance companies taking part in the original pool under Part A are addressed in 42 U.S.C. § 4053 . The superior court dismissed Moore’s claims on the ground that section 4053 grants exclusive federal jurisdiction in NFIP cases against private insurers.”

Ali Ekhlassi v. National Lloyds Insurance Co. (2019) ca5 · cites it 4× “Also instructive is 42 U.S.C. § 4053 . See Spence v. Omaha Indem.”

Wright v. Allstate Insurance (2007) ca5 · cites it 2× “28 We deem it significant that Congress expressly provided a private remedy for policyholders in 42 U.S.C. §§ 4053 and 4072. These statutes allow a policyholder to sue in federal court if he is dissatisfied with the amount of a claim payment.”

Harry Spence and Nancy Spence Fortner v. Omaha Indemnity Insurance Company (1993) ca5 · cites it 2× “We note that prior to the restructuring of the NFIP, 42 U.S.C. § 4053 provided for a one-year limitations period in actions on policies issued by private flood insurance pool participants.”

Mason v. Witt (1999) caed · cites it 4× “1998), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, looking to the plain language of 42 U.S.C. § 4053 , found that “[tjhere is simply no indication that Congress intended to create jurisdiction for any claims other than coverage claims” and held that state law torts claims are preempted…”

Re Van Holt, Jo Van Holt v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Liberty Mutual Group (1998) ca3 · cites it 5× “On December 15,1995, the Van Holts sued Liberty Mutual in the United States District Court for the District' of New Jersey.”

Halmekangas v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (2010) ca5 “See 42 U.S.C. § 4053 (granting "original exclusive jurisdiction” in National Flood Insurance Program adjustment cases to the "United States district court for the district in which the insured property .”

West v. Harris (1978) ca5 · cites it 3× “West originally filed this action in Louisiana state court against Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, the servicing agent of the National Flood Insurers Association with respect to the West policy. Although Congress granted jurisdiction in cases involving denials of claims under…”

Michael Downey v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (2001) ca7 “State Farm points to an explicit grant of jurisdiction in 42 U.S.C. § 4053 : [Ujpon the disallowance by any such company or other insurer of any such claim .”

Show all 78 citing cases →

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.