DUNN
v.
WRIGHT NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE COMPANY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court granted in part the defendant's motion to strike, finding that claims for attorney's fees, costs, and interest under state law are preempted by federal law governing the National Flood Insurance Program.
Plaintiff James Dunn filed a breach of contract claim against his flood insurance carrier, Wright National Flood Insurance Company, for unpaid claims …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse National Flood Insurance Program cases and more on FLexlaw
This lawsuit stems from hurricane Ian. Plaintiff James Dunn alleges his flood insurance carrier, Defendant Wright National Flood Insurance Company, won’t pay his claim. The complaint contains a single count for breach of contract. (Doc. 18.)1 Wright has moved to dismiss the complaint, or alternatively, strike portions of it. (Doc. 17.) Wright says Dunn is seeking relief that is barred under “the United States Government’s National Flood Insurance Program.” (Id. at 1.) Specifically, Dunn’s “claims for attorney’s fees, costs and interest pursuant to state law are preempted . . . by federal statutory, regulatory, and common law.” (Id. at 2.) Dunn did not respond to Wright’s motion, and the time to do so
The flood policy issued to Dunn falls under the National Flood Insurance Program. (See Doc. 18; Doc. 17 at 2.) As such, federal law controls this breach of contract action. See Simpson v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 6:18-CV- 2010-ORL-40-GJK, 2019 WL 636499, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 30, 2019). State law claims are also preempted. See Shuford v. Fid. Nat. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 508 F. 3d 1337, 1344 (11th Cir. 2007). Dunn is seeking various forms of relief under state law, including attorney’s fees, interest, and costs. These requests are improper. See, e.g.,
Friedman v. S.C. Ins. Co., 855 F. Supp. 348, 351 (M.D. Fla. 1994); Bianchi v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 120 F. Supp. 2d 837, 842 (N.D. Cal. 2000). Dunn asks for interest on his damages, which “is barred because it would be assessed against the government.” Lovers Lane, LLC v. Wright Nat’l Flood Ins. Co., No. 218CV741FTM29MRM, 2019 WL 130362, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 8, 2019). Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion to Strike (Doc. 17) is GRANTED IN PART as to striking Dunn’s demands for interest and relief under Florida law. 2. The references to the recovery of interest and Florida law in Paragraphs 14, 16, 17, and the Wherefore Clause (Doc. 18) are STRICKEN. 3. Defendant’s motion is DENIED as to dismissal. ENTERED in Fort Myers, Florida on September 13, 2023.
Kéfle C. Dudek = United States Magistrate Judge
Copies: All Parties of Record