Migliaro v. Fidelity National Indemnity Insurance Co., 880 F.3d 660

Anthony Migliaro’s New Jersey property was damaged by Hurricane Sandy (Oct. 2012); he had a Standard Flood Insurance Policy (SFIP) issued through WYO carrier Fidelity.
Fidelity paid $90,499.11 based on an adjuster’s recommendation; Migliaro later submitted a sworn proof of loss seeking an additional $236,702.57.
On July 15, 2013 Fidelity sent a letter titled “Rejection of Proof of Loss,” stating the claimed amount was inaccurate but also saying the letter was "not a denial of your claim" and inviting more documentation or an amended proof of loss.
Migliaro did not submit additional documentation or amend the proof; he sued Fidelity (first complaint Dec. 13, 2013, dismissed without prejudice; second complaint filed July 22, 2015).
Fidelity moved for summary judgment asserting the SFIP’s one-year statute of limitations runs from the date of a written denial of all or part of the claim; it argued the July 15 letter triggered the limitations period and Migliaro’s 2015 suit was time-barred.
The District Court granted summary judgment for Fidelity; the Third Circuit affirmed, holding that a rejected proof of loss constitutes a written denial when the policyholder treats it as such by filing suit challenging the denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a carrier’s "rejection of a proof of loss" is a "written denial of all or part of the claim" that triggers the SFIP’s one-year statute of limitations	Migliaro: the rejection letter expressly stated it was not a denial, so no written denial occurred and the limitations period never began	Fidelity: the rejection of a proof of loss functions as a denial and thus starts the one-year limitations period	Court: A rejected proof of loss is not per se a denial, but when the insured treats the rejection as a denial by suing (the only suit authorized under 42 U.S.C. § 4072), the rejection constitutes a written denial and starts the limitations period

Van Holt v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 163 F.3d 161 (3d Cir. 1998) (WYO carriers are fiscal agents and suits against them are functionally suits against FEMA)
FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994) (sovereign immunity bars suit absent a clear waiver)
Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187 (1996) (waiver of sovereign immunity must be strictly construed)
Flick v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 205 F.3d 386 (9th Cir. 2000) (strict compliance required when SFIP claims are paid from the U.S. Treasury)
Suopys v. Omaha Prop. & Cas., 404 F.3d 805 (3d Cir. 2005) (claims paid by WYO companies are direct charges to the Treasury; conditions precedent must be strictly followed)
United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596 (1990) (terms of the government’s consent to be sued define jurisdiction)