Brown v. Wright Natl Flood Ins, 20-30525

In August 2016 Brown’s Baton Rouge home flooded. She held a Standard Flood Insurance Policy (SFIP) issued by Wright and a homeowner’s policy issued by Liberty that expressly excluded flood damage.
Brown submitted signed sworn Proofs of Loss to Wright and received initial and supplemental SFIP payments totaling $145,883.47; she submitted no further sworn Proofs of Loss seeking additional flood recovery.
In January 2017 Brown was in an auto accident with Geraldine Clark; Clark’s insurer (Farm Bureau) paid its $15,000 liability limit. Brown’s auto policy with Liberty provided economic-only UM coverage.
Brown sued in state court (Liberty, Clark, Farm Bureau), later amended to add Wright and additional flood-related claims; Clark and Farm Bureau were dismissed before removal. Wright (with Liberty’s consent) removed to federal court asserting diversity and federal-question jurisdiction. Brown moved to remand; the district court denied remand.
On summary judgment the district court: (1) granted Liberty partial summary judgment on the homeowner policy (flood exclusion) and on the UM claim (no competent proof of economic damages > $15,000), (2) granted Wright summary judgment under the SFIP for failure to submit a signed and sworn Proof of Loss for additional funds, and (3) denied Brown’s cross-motion. Judgment dismissing all claims with prejudice was entered and Brown appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Motion to remand / subject-matter jurisdiction	Brown argued removal was waived or jurisdiction lacking because nondiverse defendants were in original petition	Defendants argued removal timely and jurisdiction proper because operative amended petition (at removal) showed complete diversity and amount in controversy exceeded $75,000	Remand denied: Brown forfeited non-jurisdictional remand defenses (30‑day rule); diversity existed at removal and amount-in-controversy met
Homeowner policy flood coverage	Brown sought recovery under homeowner policy for flood losses	Liberty relied on clear, unambiguous policy exclusion for flood-related losses	Held for Liberty: policy unambiguously excludes flood; Brown cannot recover under homeowner policy
UM (economic-only) claim against Liberty	Brown sought economic UM recovery for auto accident	Liberty argued Brown presented no competent evidence of economic losses exceeding the $15,000 paid by tortfeasor/insurer	Held for Liberty: Brown failed to establish essential element (damages > $15,000); UM and related bad-faith claim fail
SFIP proof-of-loss requirement (Wright)	Brown argued she was entitled to additional SFIP payment	Wright argued SFIP requires strict compliance with signed and sworn Proof of Loss and Brown submitted none for additional amount	Held for Wright: strict SFIP compliance required; no signed/sworn proof for extra recovery, so summary judgment for Wright affirmed

Ferraro v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 796 F.3d 529 (5th Cir. 2015) (SFIP provisions, including proof-of-loss, are strictly enforced)
Gowland v. Aetna, 143 F.3d 951 (5th Cir. 1998) (SFIP interpretation and enforcement)
Gebbia v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 233 F.3d 880 (5th Cir. 2000) (jurisdictional facts for removal judged at time of removal)
Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720 (5th Cir. 2002) (amount-in-controversy assessed from face of petition)
In re Shell Oil Co., 932 F.2d 1518 (5th Cir. 1991) (failure to move to remand within 30 days waives non-jurisdictional remand grounds)
Reed v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 857 So. 2d 1012 (La. 2003) (insured must present sufficient facts to establish extent of damages for UM claim)