Water Log - 'Flooding and Flood Insurance' - August 2018masglp.olemiss.edu/waterlog/pdf/watlg38.3.pdf · 2018. 8. 17. · Inside This Issue . . . After the Deluge: The National Flood

Flooding and Flood Insurance

WATERLOGVolume 38 Number 3 August 2018

A Legal Reporter of the Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium

2 AUGUST 2018 bull WATER LOG 383

Inside This Issue

After the Deluge The National FloodInsurance Program 3

Exploring the Core Components ofFloodplain Management 7

Read the Fine Print Flood InsuranceDetails and Deceptions 10

The Expertrsquos Magic Words ExploringOutcome-Determinative Testimony inHurricane Katrina Recovery Cases 13

Cover photograph courtesy of Ronald Plett

bull UPCOMING EVENTS bull

Table of Contents photograph courtesy of Christoph Desoto

6th Annual HBCU Climate ChangeConference

New Orleans LASeptember 20-23 2018

httpwwwdscejorgevents

2018 American Planning AssociationAnnual Conference ndash Mississippi amp

Alabama ChaptersOxford MS

October 10-12 2018

httpwwwapamississippicomconference

2018 Alabama-Mississippi Bays ampBayous Symposium

Mobile ALNovember 28-29 2018

httpbitly2018bayous

WATER LOG

It is a truth universally acknowledged that a homeownerin possession of a coastal property is in need of flood insuranceInsurance is typically a state-by-state insurer-by-insurer enterpriseHowever the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)was created in 1968 as a ldquoreasonable method of sharing therisk of flood losses hellip making flood insurance coverageavailable on reasonable terms and conditions to personswho have need for such protectionrdquo (PL 90-448 as amended42 USC sectsect 4001-4084) When enacting the law Congressfound that it was ldquouneconomic for the private insuranceindustry alone to make flood insurance available hellip onreasonable terms and conditionsrdquo The theory was that thescale of participation offered by the federal governmentwould make the insurance affordable

Problems Facing the National Flood Insurance ProgramHowever revenue from insurance premiums have not kept upwith the payouts for losses The scale of recent catastrophesforced the agency managing the flood insurance programthe Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) toborrow $30425 billion its statutory maximum (42 USC sect4016(a)) The NFIP is before Congress for reauthorizationand possibly amendment Congress must weigh the fact thathomeowners in areas with frequent flooding are finding theycannot afford the premiums against how much taxpayersshould give to people who live where there are frequentfloods especially beachfront properties

According to FEMA policy holders pay $332 billiona year in premiums1 Paid losses range from a 20-year low of $251721000 (2000) to a 20-year high of$17770443000 (2005)

Homeowners and InsuranceIt is not just FEMA that has struggled with the numbersMany homeowners have found the NFIP model unsustainableThe NFIP authorizes FEMA to issue the standard floodinsurance policy (SFIP) The maximum covered loss underthe SFIP for a home is $250000 plus an additional $100000for damaged contents In May 2018 the average price ofa new home in the United States was $3685002 While olderconstruction is generally cheaper the $250000 cap also appliesto coastal properties where prices are higher Those whocan afford additional coverage buy from private insurers

Many homeowners are trapped because they cannot affordto move and so must pay rising insurance costs to live in a homethat likely will suffer more flood damage In one case thehomeowner acquired an SFIP but when his mortgage waspurchased by another bank the new bank required additionalflood insurance to equal the replacement value of the homefar above the $250000 SFIP cap The additional policy wasexpensive for the homeowner whose property was locatedin a special flood hazard area The court held the bank hadthe right to require additional private insurance3

After the DelugeKristina Alexander

AUGUST 2018 bull WATER LOG 383 3

The National Flood Insurance Program

It is a myth often repeated that the NFIP has preventedprivate insurers from entering the flood insurance marketIn fact private insurance companies issue 88 percent of allSFIPs4 but those policies are underwritten by the federalgovernment (meaning it covers the losses) and the terms andcoverages are the same as if issued directly from FEMAUnder the NFIP FEMA is authorized to set rates based onoperating costs and reasonable estimates including the transferof risk5 which is consistent with how a private insurer wouldcalculate rates Instead of being blocked from the marketinsurance companies have the opportunity to offer insurancepolicies that they underwrite The fact that there is an impressionthat these policies do not exist may be due to the cost of issuingpolicies without the full faith and credit of the US governmentacting as the underwriter claims payer and sustainer of losses

Repetitive Loss Properties and PremiumsAccording to FEMA in 2008 25 to 30 percent of all floodinsurance claims come from ldquoRepetitive Loss Propertiesrdquo (RLP)which are properties that have had at least two flood claims ina 10-year period6 As of January 2016 FEMA had identified150000 structures as RLP representing just one percent ofproperties insured by FEMA despite accounting for morethan a quarter of its payouts7 In more manageable terms thisis as if the first person in line for a 100-person buffet took 30percent of the food It is not a sustainable business model

While homeowners complain about SFIP premiums risingtheir premiums do not represent the true market rate Yet theNFIP restricts FEMA from raising premiums beyond acongressionally-set point Conversely FEMA reduces premiumsfor certain properties constructed and not substantially improvedprior to 1975 The theory is that because the flood maps wereissued December 31 1974 those properties could not haveavoided building in a flood-prone area The premium subsidymeans just over 16 percent of properties in flood plains havenot paid an actuarially-sound premium rate for over 40 years8

Thus those propertiesrsquo premiums do not represent thetrue risk of a loss due to flooding Despite phasing out thepremium subsidy for those properties it will be years beforethat portion of the NFIP books are balanced To extend the100-person buffet analogy premium payments are a pot-luckbuffet where everybody brings a dish The first person inline (representing RLP) takes 30 of the 100 dishes The next16 people (the reduced-premium properties) brought only10 dishes total but they still take 16

Congressional ResponseIt appears that Congress has also found the programunsustainable but it has not come up with a solution Theprogram was set to expire most recently on July 31 2018 andbills were proposed to overhaul the program Instead Congresschose to give it some more thought and passed a short-termextension of the program Reportedly it is the 41st time in 20years that Congress has reauthorized the program on a short-term (meaning one year or less) basis in all but three timesthe extension did not make any changes to the program

Congressional attempts at improving the NFIP haveaddressed RLP For example under a pilot program authorizedby the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004 28000 propertieswere bought out or physically elevated to avoid futureflood damage None of the properties in the pilot programwere in Alabama or Mississippi9 Notably according to theNatural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) 75 percent of allcurrent RLP homes are valued at less than $250000 themaximum payout10 perhaps presenting an opportunity tobuy out more properties However the law was eliminatedby the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012

Community Rating SystemThe Community Rating System (CRS) is another attempt bythe federal government to limit catastrophic losses fromflooding CRS targets communities with flood zones to helpthem develop preventative measures and gives incentives toreduce the impacts from flooding Communitiesrsquo participationis rewarded by reductions in NFIP insurance premiums forhomes and businesses Floodplain mapping is one way toparticipate resulting in Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs)Those FIRMs identify Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA) forareas with a higher risk of flooding specifically where there isat least a one percent chance of flooding each year The CRSgives incentives to communities to address the problemsThere are four main conditions required of communities toparticipate The community must


bull Require permits for development

bull Require the lowest floor of new residential buildingsto be elevated at or above the Base Flood Elevation(which varies based on local conditions)

bull Restrict development in floodplains and

bull Require construction materials and methods to minimize future flood damage

Only 5 percent of eligible communities participate in theCRS as of last summer according to the Congressional ResearchService although 69 percent of all flood policies are from CRScommunities Notably a FEMA document with RLP frequentlyasked questions states that 25 percent of flood claims were forproperties outside of the SFHA frequently because floodingwas caused by stormwater due to inadequate local drainage

NFIP LimitsThe NFIP imposes some limitations on claims The NFIPrequires that a proof of loss be filed within 60 days Howeverfollowing wide scale natural disasters that deadline is frequentlyextended to allow for the fact that homeowners are frequentlydisplaced by the loss For example following Hurricane SandyFEMA allowed proofs of loss to be filed for two years FollowingHurricane Katrina the deadline was one year Courts will dismissclaims for coverage for failing to file the proof of loss in time

If the proof of loss was timely and the insurer deniescoverage completely or in part suits challenging the denial oramount of coverage must be brought in federal courtTypically federal courts are slower to resolve disputes thanstate courts However jurisdiction in federal court meansthat the parties likely are before a court that is familiar with

the program and that cases from around the country are handleduniformly If the insurer denies the claim the homeownermust file suit within one year of when the insurer mails thedenial of the proof of loss (42 USC sect 4072)

The NFIP limits what types of claims may be brought Claims against the insurance company for not getting thepolicy right are excluded as are punitive damages state lawclaims and also expenses for relocation and temporary housingExamples of homeowners who found their SFIP policy didnot cover flood-caused damage to their property are describedin Read the Fine Print Flood Insurance Details and Deceptions laterin this edition of Water Log

Other owners are surprised when damage from a boatsmashing into structures on land is not covered by insuranceno doubt believing insurance should cover expenses foroccurrences outside of the control of the homeowner InNew York one such case was excluded under a privateinsurance policyrsquos ldquosurface water exclusionrdquo Discussion ofwhat happened when casino barges demolished property inMississippi following Hurricane Katrina is in the article The Expertrsquos Magic Words Exploring Outcome-DeterminativeTestimony in Hurricane Katrina Recovery Cases later in this editionHere are some other examples of coverage limitations


bull Reine v State Farm Ins Co 2015 WL 770423 (ED La Feb 23 2015) Following Hurricane Isaac the proof of loss time was extended to 240 days but the homeowners could not demonstrate that they submitted a timely proof of loss

bull LCP West Monroe LLC v Selective Ins Co of Southeast 2018 WL 2292534 (WD La May 18 2018) Following a March 2016 flood the proof of loss deadline was extended to 120 days The insured filed several proofs of loss over time with the latest being more than 120 days after the loss The insurer denied the one submitted after the deadline The court dismiss the claims as untimely

bull Marseilles Homeowner Condominium Assrsquon Inc v Fidelity National Ins Co 542 F3d 1053(5th Cir 2008) Following Hurricane Katrina the courtof appeals held that an insurer cannot waive the NFIPrequirement of filing a signed proof of loss Becauseno proof of loss was filed the condo associationrsquos suit to recover $642000 for damages was dismissed

bull Choleankeril v Selective Ins Co of America 2016WL 3769352 (DNJ July 14 2016) Following Hurricane Sandy the claim is dismissed for being filed too lateOne year is counted from when the insurer mails the claim denial and not when the homeowner receives it

bull Woodson v Allstate Ins Co 855 F3d 628 (4th Cir 2017) Following Hurricane Irene the homeownerfiled suit in state court within one year of denial of coverage but NFIP claims must be filed in federal court The homeowner could not recover over $200000 in damages because it did not file in time in the right court even though the insurance company knew of the claim and the suit

bull Collins v First Community Bank 2018 WL 1404289 (SDWV March 19 2018) Following a June 2016 flood the court held that the NFIP limited the damages sought by the homeowner to direct physical losses from flood and debris removaland dismissed the claims for reimbursement for loss of use and attorneysrsquo fees


ConclusionWhile the NFIP appears to please neither the coveredhomeowners the federal budget nor the public in general itis a system that provides insurance to people many of whomwould face catastrophic financial damages without it Accordingto the Congressional Research Service as of February 2018 theNFIP had issued more than 5 million flood insurance policiesguaranteeing nearly $128 trillion in coverage Increased severeweather and a larger population in coastal counties meansclaims for flood damage will continue to outpace the premiumscollected Congress will have to legislate the solution but it hasindicated it prefers to avoid the question In fact it had createda program to remove the most flood-prone properties fromthe books under the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004 buta subsequent Congress ended the program less than a decadelater While Congress may continue to avoid accountabilityignoring the problem will not change the fact that floodingwill continue and homes likely will be underinsured leaving

the repairs to the taxpayers or the unrepaired property asblight on its neighbors l

Kristina Alexander is a Sr Research Counsel at the Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Legal Program at the University of MississippiSchool of Law and is the Editor of Water Log

Endnotes1 FEMA Policy amp Claims Statistics for Flood Insurance (last updated Nov 30 2017)

(based on 2016 data)

2 US Census Bureau Median and Average Sales Prices of New Homes Sold in United States

(Jan 1963 ndash May 2018)

3 Kolbe v BAC Home Loans Servicing LP 738 F3d 432 (1st Cir 2013)

4 Diane P Horn and Jared T Brown Introduction to the National Flood Insurance Program

(NFIP) p 13 (R44593) (Congressional Research Service April 30 2018)

(hereinafter CRS Report)

5 42 USC sect 4015

6 FEMA FEMA Grant to Assist Frequently Flooded Homeowners (R3-08-025

Feb 15 2008)

7 Rep Ed Royce Press Release Bipartisan Repeatedly Flooded Properties Insurance

Reform Introduced (March 16 2017)

8 CRS Report p 15

9 FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) data ndash FEMA

Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) Grant Programs (excel chart)

10 NRDC Press Release Report Homeowners Trapped by Repeated Flooding Under Troubled

Flood Insurance Program (July 25 2017)

11 Spindler v Great Northern Ins Co 2016 WL 921646 (EDNY Feb 2 2016)

(following Hurricane Sandy)

bull Avery v American National Property amp Casualty 2012 WL 12894806 (SD Tex Feb 2 2012) Following Hurricane Ike the homeowner learned it was not covered ldquodown to the bottomrdquo of the home as a pre-FIRM property because the insurance agent was wrong aboutthe homersquos being pre-FIRM The suit was sent to state court for review because it was not a covered claim under SFIP

Number of years after Hurricane Katrina swept casino barges into housesand docks that the Mississippi courts were still reviewing the casesMaximum reimbursement for residential real property damage under Standard FloodInsurance Policy (SFIP) issued under the National Flood Insurance Program Average cost of a new home in 2018 Percentage of SFIPs issued by insurance companies and notthe Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Maximum statutory borrowing limit for FEMA to pay for flood claims

11

$250000

$368500

88

$30425000000

IN SUMA Summation of the Facts and Figures of Interest in this Edition

Amount FEMA has borrowed $30425000000Percent of eligible communities participating in the FEMA floodimpacts reduction program the Community Rating System 5

Exploring the Core Components of Floodplain Management


Stephen Deal

Flooding is the costliest type of natural disaster in theUnited States but it may also be one of the most commonlymisunderstood areas of disaster planning The circumstancesand situations that give rise to a flood can vary greatly evenwithin a specific place or region For example along the GulfCoast many communities are susceptible to coastal floodingfrom storm surge which is brought about by hurricanesRiverine flooding is also a major concern due to the regionrsquoslarge river systems and high annual rainfall Flooding may also be attributable to the failure of manmade systems such as dams levees or city drainage systems Lack of propermaintenance within a cityrsquos stormwater system can result insignificant flooding if blockages occur in a drainpipe orspillway thereby causing water to back up and overflowNaturally this makes flood mitigation a considerableundertaking for any local government and difficult to plan forin a timely and predictable manner However with the aid ofinnovative mapping and federal guidance programs such asthe Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)Community Rating System communities can begin to tackleflooding hazards in a systematic and proactive way

The Value of MappingIn order to get a better sense of the risks associated withflooding it is first imperative to review the ways in which floodrisk is evaluated For local communities flood risk is mostcommonly evaluated through comprehensive mapping of thefloodplain A floodplain may be broadly defined as an area thatprovides temporary storage space for floodwaters andsediment produced by a watershed1 While the vast majority offloodplains typically occur around water channels such asrivers and streams the size of a floodplain can vary greatlyfrom region to region For example within the Northern Gulfof Mexico there are many oxbow lakes and swamps whichcan occur well beyond the main water channel and cansignificantly expand the scale of the floodplain in question

Given the variability of the floodplain most localfloodplain managers opt to delineate flood risk using oneof two different measurements the 100-year floodplain or

the 500-year floodplain In the 1960s when the NationalFlood Insurance Program (NFIP) was established theUnited States government used the one percent annualexceedance probability (AEP) as the major regulatory measurefor the program2 Because the one percent AEP has anaverage recurrence interval of 100 years local policymakersgenerally use the term 100-year flood However as flooddamages continue to mount across the country manycommunities are now organizing their planning endeavorsaround the 500-year flood instead The 500-year floodcorresponds to a flood event that has a 1 in 500 chance ofoccurring within a given year It should be noted that theseterms refer to the probability of a flood event occurringbut a probability is not always an accurate predictor offuture events and it is not uncommon for major floodevents to be clustered together

These two categories are the primary risk factors depictedon Flood Insurance Rate Maps otherwise known as FIRMs3

Many of the FIRMs used by local municipalities are incrediblydetailed and provide a wealth of information on the generalrisk profile within a given floodplain As good as FIRMS arethey arenrsquot without their flaws and one significant drawbackto the maps is that a FIRM is merely a snapshot in time andis not a good predictor for future conditions To get a senseof future conditions one needs to go beyond the baserequirements of the NFIP to develop local models that canevolve and change with enough frequency to capture theways in which a floodplain can change over time

One example of a region which recalibrated its floodplainmapping approach is the City of Charlotte North CarolinaIn response to a series of devastating storms which struck the region in the mid-1990s local government officials in conjunction with Mecklenburg County instituted acomprehensive mapping initiative to get a better grasp on thepotential scope and scale of future flood events Charlotteand Mecklenburg County adopted a floodplain managementguidance document that was premised on assuming ultimatebuild-out land use conditions for floodplain mapping4

When final build-out conditions are built into a model

the floodplain takes on new boundaries to account for spacetaken up by buildings For the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Countyarea the average base flood elevations based on an ultimatebuild-out scenario were 43 feet higher than the 1975 mapsThese conditions were the basis of a series of updated mapsfor Charlotte and the greater Mecklenburg County area Thefully digitized maps were first completed in 2003 and theycontinue to be updated by the local engineering firms thatfirst designed them5

The Value of MaintenanceWhile mapping may be a complicated undertaking forsome small towns and governments when addressingflood management regular maintenance of stormwaterinfrastructure is not Even though many communities havelaws and ordinances in place requiring detention ponds andother stormwater management measures in major newdevelopments it is not always a guarantee that those structureswill be maintained adequately One simple tool communitiescan employ to encourage stormwater maintenance is to have developers sign a maintenance agreement as part of thepermitting process In the City of Kings Mountain NorthCarolina city staff created a simple four-page form to ensurethat local developers complied with basic maintenancemeasures on their stormwater infrastructure6

Maintenance agreements are not the only tools availableto aid and assist communities with their stormwaterinfrastructure In fact a number of sound procedures maybe found within FEMArsquos Community Rating Systemprogram (CRS) The CRS was introduced into the NFIP in19907 as an incentives program for communities to earn apremium discount on flood insurance that can be passed onto its citizens The discounts are achieved by engaging inflood mitigation activities that go beyond the baserequirements prescribed by the NFIP

One process communities can engage in under the CRS program is known as Activity 540 which coversdrainage system maintenance activities This activityprescribes basic measures related to drainage systems to help reduce flooding impacts Such measures include annuallyinspecting the city drainage system maintaining acomprehensive inventory of the entire system andmaintaining basic information such as ownership locationand whether the infrastructure item in question is subject tothe city maintenance program8

Another Activity 540 task involves ongoing maintenancefor natural water features like creeks or streams Cities shouldensure that water flow is not obstructed In certain situationscities may have statutory authority to order private entities toclear creek debris if the creek is visually prominent and caneasily be inspected annually from an off-site location such asa bridge It is also advisable for local governments to lookinto establishing maintenance easements with private entitiesto conduct regular inspection and maintenance of a creekon private property

While ongoing maintenance of city drainage and sewersystems is not enough by itself to protect a community fromflood concerns it does provide simple benchmarks thatcommunities can implement A communityrsquos drainageinfrastructure cannot be expected to work at its full designcapacity if careful steps are not taken to remove debris andprovide regular maintenance Having maintenance agreementsin place with permit applicants is a plus and if communitiesare looking for additional guidance on this issue theCommunity Rating System is a great resource that coversadditional initiatives communities can undertake to keeptheir drainage infrastructure in good working order

Using Zoning to Preserve Floodplain FunctionsIt should be noted though that not every aspect of floodprevention is neatly within the jurisdiction of a communityfloodplain manager Zoning for example is a powerful toolwhen it comes to protecting and conserving the floodplainthis is where the knowledge of a communityrsquos land useplanner becomes paramount The primary way in whichzoning serves as a regulatory tool for floodplain managementis by capping the amount of development that can beconducted within the floodplain Capping or inhibitingthe amount of development inside a floodplain is one of the chief tasks a planner carries out with regards toflood mitigation

One example of zoning being employed in this manneris in the City of Biloxi Mississippi where city staffimplemented an agricultural restricted zoning category with aminimum lot area per dwelling unit of 217800 square feet9

An agricultural restricted zoning category is the least denseresidential zoning category with agricultural district as thesecond least dense residential zoning category An agriculturaldistrictrsquos minimum lot area per dwelling unit is significantlysmaller at 43560 square feet Biloxi implemented agricultural



restricted zoning in parcels that were within floodways orcontained a significant amount of wetlands This minimumlot area represents a major deterrent to new high densitydevelopment that will have more impervious surfacesimpacting waterflow By restricting density within thefloodplain local governments can ensure that the developmentimpacts on the floodplain are kept to a minimum

Restricting density is not the only choice for planners toavoid negative impacts on floodplains Another techniquecommonly applied by planning officials is to develop a floodoverlay zone An overlay zone is an easy way of imposingadditional regulatory requirements on top of existing zoningcategories10 Since many communities have grown adjacent tolarge harbors and waterways it is quite common for a widevariety of land uses to exist in or around a floodplain whichis why a single zoning category may not always work best

One example of a flood overlay zone is Lancaster CountyVirginiarsquos waterfront residential overlay The county is part ofthe Chesapeake Bay watershed The waterfront residentialoverlay district applies to all parcels of land recorded on orafter May 11 1988 that are residential in nature and locatedwithin 800 feet of tidal waters and wetlands11 Many of theregulatory goals and intentions expressed by the agriculturalrestricted zone are shared by Lancaster Countyrsquos overlay zoneFor example it restricts the minimum lot size the minimumlot size is 87120 square feet or two acres Also only onemain building and an accessory structure may be erected onany lot In addition there is a 100-foot setback from tidalwetlands and a 50-foot setback from the edge of nontidalisolated wetlands

Property setbacks such as the ones referenced above are another good technique for further circumscribing the development footprint within a flood sensitive areaSetbacks lot sizes and restrictions on the number of allowablestructures are all good examples of the wide variety offloodplain management issues that can be addressed throughthe zoning code Because zoning is responsible for setting theregulatory envelope in which development can be pursuedit is no surprise that any sound flood mitigation strategywill have to consider the role zoning can play in curbingdevelopment within the floodplain

ConclusionFlooding is a major concern for many communities andit is unlikely that this will change in the foreseeable future

However that does not mean that cities are deprived ofany agency in addressing the problem Through comprehensivemapping and basic maintenance of existing stormwaterinfrastructure communities can make great strides towardsaddressing flooding concerns A local floodplain managercan pursue many of these mapping and maintenance activitiesbut a sound flood mitigation plan will invariably require amulti-disciplinary approach For example planners play arole in flood mitigation by crafting zoning categories and building envelopes which keep development insidethe floodplain to a minimum Also as the example fromCharlotte demonstrates cooperation between differentsectors of government such as city and county can helpwhen it comes to building a more complete picture offlood risk Neighborhood associations and local citizenscan also play a role by establishing maintenance easementswith local authorities allowing access to government staffin order to clear clean creeks and streams of debris In shorta robust floodplain management program must employ awide array of tactics and strategies that can evolve andadapt almost as rapidly as floodplains do l

Stephen Deal is the Extension Specialist in Land Use Planning for theMississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Legal Program

Endnotes

1 Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Academy Web The Floodplain

2 Robert R Holmes Jr The 100-Year Flood-Itrsquos All About Chance (USGS) US

Geological Survey (Dec 7 2017)

3 Floodsmart All About Flood Maps

4 LSU Coastal Sustainability Studio Louisiana Resiliency Assistance Program

Mecklenburg County NC (2018)

5 Madeline Bodin Flood Warning Better Subdivision Design for Drier Safer Communities

Planning Magazine (Feb 2017)

6 City of Kings Mountain Stormwater Dept Dry Detention Basin Operation and

Maintenance Agreement

7 Eugene Frimpong Community Level Flood Mitigation Effects on Household-Level

Insurance and Damage Claims 2016

8 CRS Resources CRS Credit for Drainage System Maintenance (Aug 2017)

9 City of Biloxi Land Development Ordinance Art 23-32(B-1) (Dec 15 2010)

10Wetlands Watch Resilient Zoning

11 Lancaster County Virginia Land Development Code County of Lancaster

Article 18 - Waterfront Residential Overlay All Districts W-1 (Oct 10 2017)


Coverage details can be crucial in flood insuranceSimply because something gets wet or ruined from flood waterdoes not necessarily mean the loss will be covered Floodingespecially of coastal cities has become more prevalent in the lastsixty years Consequently flood insurance is crucial for thosewho live near water Insurance is meant as a protective measurefor you or your property but often what is and what is notcovered by insurance policies is different from what theinsured expects The most important aspects of any giveninsurance policy lie in the details of the policyrsquos provisionswhich describe what is truly covered

The NFIP and the SFIPThe National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 created the NationalFlood Insurance Program (NFIP)1 The goal of the program isto reduce the impacts of flooding by making flood insurancemore affordable especially for those who need flood insurancethe most 42 USC sect 4012 describes the NFIP and specifies a priority for residential properties churches and smallbusinesses Flood insurance policies issued under the programare referred to as a Standard Flood Insurance Policy (SFIP)There are three types of SFIPs dwelling form general propertypolicy and residential condominium association building policy2

While there are many ldquowrite-your-ownrdquo insurance companiesthe provisions of each SFIP are strictly governed and controlledby FEMA which administers the NFIP The NFIP in effectldquoguarantees and subsidizes flood insurancerdquo3 Due to thelocation of the properties that need flood insurance the mosta SFIP may be the only policy the insureds are able to afford

Summary Judgment in a Nutshell While all of the cases discussed in this article involve SFIPcoverage three of them reached a conclusion via summaryjudgment Summary judgment is a final ruling by a court inwhich the party moving for summary judgment is entitled to ajudgment as a matter of law because there is no genuine issueof fact present in the case A genuine issue of fact would be a

core fact that is not agreed upon by both parties so a jury wouldbe necessary to resolve the dispute If summary judgment isgranted in favor of the moving party then the case is over

These cases illustrate how important the details areespecially when it comes to a flood insurance policy In eachcase the insurance company or insurer seems to be theone holding all the cards The insurers are keenly aware ofthe details of the policy while the insureds are repeatedlyunaware of what their insurance policy truly covers or theymisunderstand the wording of the policy The courts donot seem to recognize any imbalance of power rather theyrule with the strict and specific language of the standardflood insurance policies present in each of these cases

Coverage for Flooded Basement or Below-Grade AreasWater rises from the ground up so logic would follow thatyour flood insurance would cover the first area of your housethat would flood the basement In fact the opposite is trueFEMArsquos SFIP does not cover below the lowest elevated floormeaning anything below the ground floor This limitationproves to be an issue for many homeowners Consider forexample the case of Ali Ekhlassi in Houston4 In May 2015 asevere storm caused Ekhlassirsquos basement to flood with five tosix feet of water for two days Ekhlassirsquos insurer deniedpayment for ldquoall non-covered items located below the lowestelevated floor of [Ekhlassirsquos]hellipbuildingrdquo SubsequentlyEkhlassi sued the insurer for breach of contract violations ofTexas Insurance Code and violations of the Deceptive TradePractices Act The insurer moved for summary judgment

The issue before the court was one of statute of limitationsThe statute of limitations in a standard flood insurance policylike the one Ekhlassi had specifies that if you wish to bringa suit against the insurer then you must file suit within one yearafter the first written denial is dated The insurer sent the firstdated denial letter in October 2015 and they later sent anotherdenial letter in January 2016 which explicitly referenced theOctober letter The court agreed with the insurer that the October

Read the Fine PrintRachel Buddrus

Flood Insurance Details and Deceptions


2015 denial letter initiated the statute of limitations periodSubsequently Ekhlassirsquos suit in January of 2017 was nottimely since the statute of limitations had run The courtmade it out to be quite simple but it was not clear to Ekhlassiwho thought the damage was covered and that he followedthe appropriate steps to recover damages by filing within oneyear of the most recent denial letter

Jefferson Beach House Condominium Association (theAssociation) experienced difficulties with its flood insurancecoverage after Hurricane Sandy5 The Association was insuredunder a ldquowrite your ownrdquo SFIP by Harleysville InsuranceCompany of New Jersey (the insurer) Due to HurricaneSandy the parking garage sustained flood damage Specificallyglass block window panels and masonry block requiredreplacing at an estimated cost of $33264 The Association fileda timely claim and an independent adjuster inspected theproperty The insurer paid part of the claim but not all so theAssociation sued the insurer for breach of contract

The issue here arises from the categorization of thedamage to the parking garage The Association claims that thedamage constitutes damage to the exterior of the enclosurewhich would be covered damage under its SFIP Based on theindependent adjusterrsquos report the insurer contends that thedamage to the parking garage was not exterior damage andoccurred below the lowest elevated floor of the enclosuretherefore the damage is not covered by the policy The insurersought to dismiss the Associationrsquos claim for failure to state aclaim as well as dismiss the Associationrsquos claim for recovery ofattorneyrsquos fees and costs The court denied the insurerrsquosmotion to dismiss the claim for coverage The court foundthat the Association did in fact adequately state a claim in their complaint that the damaged wall was insured property The court concluded that based on the information before ithad the independent adjuster categorized the damage asdamage to the exterior of the enclosure the insurer wouldlikely have paid the claim This goes to show that not only is thelanguage of the policy important but how those involvedinterpret that language is also crucial

Coverage for Erosion Damages from Flooding The next case Nixon v Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company alsohighlights the importance of knowing the coverage of a SFIP6

Crawford Nixon filed suit against Nationwide Mutual InsuranceCompany (the insurer) alleging that his insurer had breachedthe flood insurance contract it had with him In the Spring of

2014 heavy rains flooded the Black Warrior River in AlabamaThe river rose so high that it came within feet of Nixonrsquos homeAfter the waters receded Nixon noticed that the flood causedthe ground to shift and damaged his home Nixon notifiedthe insurer of the damage in a timely manner whichtriggered an assessment of the property by an agent and anindependent engineer

Nixon was insured under a SFIP that had inflexiblecodified provisions The independent engineerrsquos report indicatedthe damage was caused by earth movement Earth movementis not covered by a standard flood insurance policy because itconstitutes land damage and the insurer denied Nixonrsquos insuranceclaim in May 2014 This suggests that the policy did not coverflood damage as might have been considered by the owner when water eliminated his ability to safely use his home Nixonrsquos father (Wilson) retained a geotechnical engineer to evaluate theproperty and an excavating company to stabilize the homeWilson came to the conclusion that it would be a betterlong-term solution to move the home rather than try torepair it in its current location so the excavating company alsoprepared a new home pad Nixon appealed the insurerrsquos denialof his claim to FEMA and provided photographs of theproperty the geotechnical engineerrsquos report and a proof ofloss form FEMA affirmed the insurerrsquos denial of Nixonrsquos claim

Nixonrsquos proof of loss form contributed to the insurerrsquosdenial of his claim A proof of loss form is a requirementunder the SFIP The SFIP mandates that a proof of loss formmust be submitted to the insurer within sixty days of the lossincurred in order to recover from the insurer The proof ofloss should describe the amount claimed under the policy andspecific information about the covered property In Nixonrsquos casethe proof of loss form was signed but not dated when it wasreturned to the insurance agent

The insurer claimed several bases for denying coverageFirst in January 2015 the insurer sent a letter stating that itsprevious denial letter dated May 2014 was still in forceFurther the proof of loss was submitted to FEMA instead ofthe insurer Finally the proof of loss was received more thansixty days after the loss For these reasons the insurer stated thatit would deny any further payment Immediately following theJanuary 2015 denial letter Nixon filed suit against the insurer

Ultimately the court granted the insurerrsquos request forsummary judgment but for reasons not based on the proof oflossrsquos filing Instead the court granted summary judgment inregard to land damages and relocation damages Nixon argued


that these damages were covered under his flood insurance policyHowever based on the precise definitions of ldquodwellingrdquo andldquobuildingrdquo in the SFIP the court found that the insurer wasentitled to summary judgment for land damages from earthmovement because the policy does not cover land damagesspecifically land that is not part of the insured dwelling The courtalso decided that summary judgment should be granted for theinsurer in regard to the relocation damages because Nixonrsquospolicy did not cover ldquothe costs to construct a home pad and movethe home to a new siterdquo This may lead some to question if thepolicy negates the coverage reasonably expected by the insuredthen is it a fair contract between the insured and the insurer

Coverage for Removing Debris from Flooding One would think that flood insurance covers damage caused bya flood but as Nixon v Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company showedthat can depend on a variety of factors If an insured does notfollow the precise provisions of the SFIP then the insurer deniescoverage Hurricane Sandy devastated the East Coast and theTorres were two of the nearly 62000 people affected in NewJersey7 FEMA estimates that as a result of Hurricane Sandythere were about $35 billion in flood insurance payments inNew Jersey alone8 The Torres husband and wife were insuredby Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company (the insurer) undera SFIP9 The Torresrsquo property sustained significant damage andthe insurer initially paid the Torres upwards of $235000 for thecovered damages to their property In addition to this paymentthe Torres later sought about $15500 for the removal costs ofsand and debris from their property The Torres and theinsurer disagreed on the definition of ldquoinsured propertyrdquo

Therefore the core issue before the court was one ofcontractual interpretation of the SFIP on whether it coveredcosts for removing debris carried in by a hurricane to their landsurrounding their house The SFIP contained debris removalprovisions that used the term ldquoinsured propertyrdquo Unfortunatelythe SFIP did not define insured property so the court had tointerpret the term The Court of Appeals interpreted the termldquoinsured propertyrdquo as it relates to debris removal and came to theconclusion that ldquoinsured propertyrdquo as FEMA intends meansproperty that is insured Under the SFIP land is not insured soldquoinsured propertyrdquo is solely the described building If the debrisin question had entered the Torresrsquo house then the insurer couldpotentially pay for the cost of removing the debris Howeversince the debris for which the Torres sought reimbursement wason the land that the insured building was on they could not

recover those costs The court maintained that insured propertyclearly meant the property that was insured under the policywhich did not include the land Therefore the court affirmed thejudgment of the District Court and denied the Torresrsquo motionThis case serves as another example of how the specific languageof a SFIP determines what is covered These specific provisionsare clearly up for interpretation as shown by the large number ofinsureds who have misunderstood what their policies covered

ConclusionA few overarching issues are clear based on the cases aboveThe predominant common theme is that the details of theprovisions in an SFIP can make or break an insuredrsquos claim forrecovery of damages Predicting the outcome of a case involvinga flood insurance claim can be difficult As shown by these casescourts can go either way because the facts dictate the decision aswell as whether the procedures required by a policy are followedprecisely However that is not helpful for homeowners that dependon their SFIP to cover damages from flooding Additionally howthe independent adjuster or engineer describes the loss in theirreport can dictate whether the insurer will approve or deny aninsuredrsquos claim Homeowners rely on these policies so SFIPsought to be reliable and predictable Unfortunately manyinsureds have experienced the opposite Flood insurancepolicies reinforce the idiom that the devil is in the details andit definitely pays to pay attention to those details l

Rachel Buddrus is Legal Intern at the Mississippi-Alabama Sea GrantLegal Program as well as a rising third year law student at theUniversity of Mississippi School of Law

Endnotes1 Gary Knapp National Flood Insurance Risks and Coverage 81 ALR Fed 416 (1987)

2 Carolann Jackson Doughtery National Flood Insurance Coverage in General

2 Insuring Real Property sect 1101

3 Jefferson Beach House Condo Assrsquon v Harleysville Ins Co No 13-6480

2014 WL 4681074 (DNJ Sep 22 2014) (quoting Brusco v Harleysville Ins

Co No 14-914 2014 WL 2916716 at 1 (DNJ June 26 2014)

4 Ekhlassi v National Lloyds Ins Co 295 F Supp 3d 750 (SD Tex 2018)


2014 WL 4681074 (DNJ Sep 22 2014)

6 Nixon v Nationwide Mutual Ins Co 244 F Supp 3d 1245 (ND Ala 2017)

7 FEMA Hurricane Sandy by the Numbers (Oct 9 2015)

8 Id

9 Toree v Liberty Mutual Fire Ins Co 781 F3d 651 (3d Cir 2015)


The Expertrsquos Magic Words

Grace M Sullivan

Exploring Outcome-Determinative Testimony inHurricane Katrina Recovery Cases

On August 29 2005 Hurricane Katrina struck the coastsof Louisiana Mississippi and Alabama with winds up to 125mph and a storm surge of 25-28 feet1 Not all of HurricaneKatrinarsquos destruction came directly from its impressive stormsurge or powerful winds alone Cherri Porter lost her Biloxihome to a casino barge2 which broke free from the GrandCasino of Mississippi and destroyed her beachfront house onimpact Another of Grand Casinorsquos barges ironically dubbedThe Lady Luck broke free from its moorings and destroyedKR Borriesrsquos construction site on the nearby Schooner Pier3

Borries sued Grand Casino for negligence in mooring itsbarge Porter sued Grand Casino for negligence and sued herinsurer for a bad faith denial of coverage Lower courtsgranted summary judgments in favor of the casinos in Porterand Borriesrsquos claims as well as the insurance company inPorterrsquos case This means that the court believed there wereno disputed facts and there was no need to have a trial inorder for the court to find in favor of the defendants

Eleven years after the hurricane Borries and Porterrsquos casesfinally came before the Supreme Court of Mississippi The Courthad precedent from the case of Eli v Silver Slipper of allowingsimilar claims to be decided by a jury and it followed suit byremanding Borriesrsquos case back to the trial court for a jury trialWith respect to Porter however the Court almost inexplicablyaffirmed all of the lower courtsrsquo summary judgments4 Althougha barge destroyed Porterrsquos house the Court held that the bargeowner was not to blame and that Porterrsquos insurance providerwas not accountable either Effectively there was no legalrecovery for Porter for Hurricane Katrina damages

An Act of GodThe pivotalquestion in each of these cases was whether HurricaneKatrinarsquos massive storm surge amounted to an ldquoAct of Godrdquothat under law freed the casinoowners from liability Those whouse the phrase colloquially would certainly say the storm was

some divine event an uncontrollable force of nature Howeverthe Mississippi court system took nearly a decade to solidify itsposition on whether Hurricane Katrina was legally an Act ofGod That is whether use of reasonable precaution couldhave prevented its damage

In 2010 the Court of Appeals of Mississippi held thatHurricane Katrina was an Act of God5 This meant it wouldbe nearly impossible for victims to bring negligence claimsbecause the court said that the storm was unforeseeable andeven the highest standard of care could not have preventedproperty from causing damage In 2013 however the case ofEli v Silver Slipper brought the issue before the Supreme Courtof Mississippi6 The Court distinguished the appellate judgmentand instead held that whether Hurricane Katrina was an Act ofGod depended on a question of fact whether or not reasonablecare could have prevented foreseeable damage Thus the courtin Eli found that the casino owner was not entitled to a summaryjudgment just for raising an Act of God defense and sent thecase back to trial to determine whether the casino was negligent

When the Court heard Porterrsquos case less than three yearslater the majority opinion did not discuss the Act of Goddefense by name but the Court made clear that it decidedthe case on the issue of foreseeability Porter argued that sheestablished a battle of the experts similar to that which ledthe Court in Eli to determine that there was a genuine issueof fact as to whether the casino could have anticipatedHurricane Katrinarsquos storm surge and whether it employed areasonable amount of care to prevent damage The Courtdisagreed and concluded that no material issues of factexisted and ruled in Grand Casinorsquos favor

Two months after Porter in March 2016 the SupremeCourt of Mississippi heard Borriesrsquo negligence claim In thatcase the casino-defendant raised the Act of God defense andthe Court held that the partiesrsquo experts presented genuineissues of fact The Court remanded the case to trial for a jury


to determine whether the storm should be called an Act ofGod but the parties settled in 2017 just before trial

The Expertsrsquo Magic WordsHow is it possible that two seemingly identical claims relatedto the same storm and against the same casino came out ofthe Supreme Court of Mississippi with vastly different resultsBased on the Courtrsquos opinions the somewhat unsatisfactoryanswer is that Porterrsquos expertrsquos language may not have beenprecise enough or he may not have included all of theinformation at his disposal to address the key issue of whetherthe casino should have foreseen a storm of Hurricane Katrinarsquosmagnitude A closer look at these testimonies alongside thedefendantsrsquo arguments provides clarity

The Supreme Court made it clear in each case that thecasinos had a duty to prevent foreseeable damage to nearbyproperty owners in the event of a hurricane The court heldthat as in Eli Borries presented a genuine issue of materialfact as to the element of foreseeability while Porter pointedto evidence of the casinorsquos negligence without discussingwhether the casino should have foreseen Hurricane Katrinarsquosdestruction The difference that resulted in Borriesrsquos successwas the expert testimony as to foreseeability The appellate court

decision on Porter which the Supreme Court of Mississippiaffirmed notes that Porterrsquos failure to directly tie her evidenceto foreseeability was ldquooutcome determinativerdquo in the courtrsquos eyes7

Insurance ClaimsCherri Porter her home left in rubble after Hurricane Katrinaalso tried to recover from her insurer State Farm Fire andCasualty Co After all what is insurance for if not to cover anAct of God Porter held an all-risk policy meaning that anydamage would be covered unless it was specifically excludedState Farm denied her initial claim for coverage citing anexclusion for both wind and water damage Porter sued forbad faith denial of coverage wielding expert evidence that acasino barge destroyed her home not wind or water For herargument Porter again relied on a prior Hurricane Katrinacase in which the Supreme Court of Mississippi interpreted acommon policy clause to favor the insured

In that case Corban vs USAA Insurance Agency a homeownersuffered major wind and water damage to her house duringHurricane Katrina Corbanrsquos insurer denied that it was requiredto pay for the loss based on her all-risk policyrsquos water damageexclusion and the ldquoanti-concurrent cause (ACC) clauserdquo This typeof provision means that an insurance policy only providescoverage when damage is directly caused by a covered peril notwhen there is a chain of events leading to the loss The insurerin Corban claimed that the ACC barred recovery where waterdamage was involved regardless of any other damage or theorder in which it occurred8 The Supreme Court of Mississippiheld that the ACC clause in Corbanrsquos policy was onlyapplicable where an excluded peril and a covered peril acted inconjunction to cause the same damage The case was sentback for a jury trial to determine the factual question of howmuch damage was caused by water an excluded event versushow much damage was caused by wind a covered event

Porter argued that her home was at least partiallydestroyed by a covered event as in Corban and a jury shouldsort out the damage In her case Porter contended theinsurance policy covered damage from debris like the casinobarge The Supreme Court gave less discussion to the anti-concurrent cause language and instead pointed to a phrasewithin Porterrsquos policy that refused coverage for any damagethat would not have happened in the absence of an excludedevent Accordingly as Porterrsquos policy excluded wind and waterdamage the Court held that the casino barge could not havecaused damage without either of these excluded events

Borries v Grand CasinoBorriesrsquo expert claimed that while the bargersquos mooringwas designed to withstand up to a fifteen-foot stormsurge a reasonable engineer for the casino should haveused the known surge height of Hurricane Camille whichwas around twenty-four feet Grand Casinorsquos expertsresponded that the bargersquos mooring could withstand upto a seventeen-foot storm surge which exceeded theMississippi Gaming Commissionrsquos minimum licensurerequirement and was dispositive of reasonable care

Porter v Grand CasinoPorterrsquos expert presented evidence that Grand Casino ofMississippi had failed to submit to annual structuralinspections of their mooring system or develop a heavystorm-mooring plan which was industry standardNotably the expert did not testify to the foreseeability ofthe storm surge Grand Casino responded with experttestimony that it met and exceeded the minimumregulatory requirements from the gaming commissionand therefore met its standard of care


Another Expertrsquos ShortcomingThe dissenting justice in Porter expressed that the majoritymade a mistake by not using Corban as precedent He pointedout that a home destroyed by detached casino barge did not fitany commonly held understanding of water or wind damage anda jury should have determined the causes of Porterrsquos damage

A look at the 2014 appellate court decision in Porterrsquos casemay shed light on why the majority in the highest court heldthere were no factual issues as there were in Corban Porterpresented expert testimony that the proximate cause of herdamages was the casino barge In his testimony the expertstated that the casino barge allided with Porterrsquos house Theappellate opinion notes that ldquoallidedrdquo is a nautical term that isused to describe something propelled by water crashing intosomething stationary Therefore the court saw the expertopinionrsquos use of that word as a concession that the barge wouldnot have destroyed Porterrsquos house but for the storm surge whichwas water damage excluded from coverage by her insurancepolicy Again one could speculate that the outcome of Porterrsquosclaim turned on her expertrsquos precise word choice

ConclusionThe legal aftermath of Hurricane Katrina is still evident inMississippirsquos court system Claims are still coming to review andparties are still settling a storm of litigation over a decade afterthe wind and waves devastated the Gulf Coast For KR Borriesthe courts kept his claim afloat long enough to have leverage to

reach a settlement perhaps recovering some percent of the valueof his lost construction site In the case of Cherri Porter thelegal system offered no recovery althoughher home was destroyedA close look at the courtrsquos decision reveals the significance ofthe expertrsquos testimony including the importance of preciselanguage in reaching a determination even where cases withseemingly identical facts resulted in opposite outcomes l

Grace M Sullivan is Legal Intern at the Mississippi-Alabama SeaGrant Legal Program as well as a rising second year law student atthe University of Mississippi School of Law

Endnotes1 NOAA

2 In Mississippi pre-Katrina gambling businesses were only allowed to operate

on offshore barges as a compromise to groups that opposed legal gambling in

the state Most of the casinos were permanently moored just off the coast See

Rick Lyman Mississippi May Move Its Casinos Ashore The New York Times (Sept

28 2005)

3 Borries v Grand Casino of Mississippi Inc Biloxi 187 So 3d 1042 (Miss 2016)

4 Porter v Grand Casino of Mississippi Inc 181 So3d 980 (Miss 2016)

5 Bay Point High and Dry LLC v New Palace Casino LLC 46 So 3d 821

(Miss Ct App 2010)

6 Eli Investments LLC v Silver Slipper Casino Venture LLC 118 So3d 151

(Miss 2013)

7 Porter v Grand Casino of Mississippi Inc Biloxi 138 So 3d 952 (Miss Ct App 2014)

8 Corban v USAA Ins Agency 20 So 3d 601 (Miss 2009)

WATER LOG (ISSN 1097-0649) is supported by theNational Sea Grant College Program of the USDepartment of Commercersquos National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration under NOAA GrantNumber NA140AR4170098 the Mississippi-AlabamaSea Grant Consortium the State of Mississippi theMississippi Law Research Institute and the Universityof Mississippi Law Center The statements findingsconclusions and recommendations are those of theauthor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of theMississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Legal Program theMississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium or the USDepartment of Commerce The US Govern ment andthe Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium areauthorized to produce and distribute reprintsnotwithstanding any copyright notation that may appearhereon

Recommended citation Authorrsquos name Title of Article383 WATER LOG [Page Number] (2018)

The University complies with allapplicable laws regarding affirmativeaction and equal opportunity in all itsactivities and programs and does notdiscriminate against anyone protectedby law because of age creed colornational origin race religion sexdisability veteran or other status

MASGP-18-003-03This publication is printed on recycled paper of

100 post-consumer content

ISSN 1097-0649 August 2018

Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Legal ProgramKinard Hall Wing E Room 258University MS 38677-1848

The University of Mississippi

WATER LOG

WATER LOG is a quarterly publicationreporting on legal issues affecting theMississippi-Alabama coastal area Its goal is toincrease awareness and understanding of

coastal issues in and around the Gulf of Mexico

To subscribe to WATER LOG free of charge go tohttpmasglpolemissedusubscribe For all other inquiriescontact us by mail at Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant LegalProgram 258 Kinard Hall Wing E P O Box 1848 UniversityMS 38677-1848 by phone (662) 915-7697 or by e-mail atbdbarne1olemissedu We welcome suggestions for topics youwould like to see covered in WATER LOG

Edi to r Kristina Alexander

Publi cat ion Design Barry Barnes

Cont ributor s Rachel BuddrusStephen C DealGrace M Sullivan

Follow us on TwitterBecome a fan by clicking ldquoFollowrdquo on our page at

twittercommsalseagrantlaw


Inside This Issue

After the Deluge The National FloodInsurance Program 3

Exploring the Core Components ofFloodplain Management 7

Read the Fine Print Flood InsuranceDetails and Deceptions 10

The Expertrsquos Magic Words ExploringOutcome-Determinative Testimony inHurricane Katrina Recovery Cases 13

Cover photograph courtesy of Ronald Plett

bull UPCOMING EVENTS bull

Table of Contents photograph courtesy of Christoph Desoto

6th Annual HBCU Climate ChangeConference

New Orleans LASeptember 20-23 2018

httpwwwdscejorgevents

2018 American Planning AssociationAnnual Conference ndash Mississippi amp

Alabama ChaptersOxford MS

October 10-12 2018

httpwwwapamississippicomconference

2018 Alabama-Mississippi Bays ampBayous Symposium

Mobile ALNovember 28-29 2018

httpbitly2018bayous

WATER LOG














































5 42 USC sect 4015


Feb 15 2008)



8 CRS Report p 15









11

$250000

$368500

88

$30425000000





Stephen Deal



























Endnotes























































2014 WL 4681074 (DNJ Sep 22 2014)



8 Id




Grace M Sullivan


























Endnotes1 NOAA





28 2005)




(Miss Ct App 2010)


(Miss 2013)








ISSN 1097-0649 August 2018



WATER LOG






















































5 42 USC sect 4015


Feb 15 2008)



8 CRS Report p 15









11

$250000

$368500

88

$30425000000





Stephen Deal



























Endnotes























































2014 WL 4681074 (DNJ Sep 22 2014)



8 Id




Grace M Sullivan


























Endnotes1 NOAA





28 2005)




(Miss Ct App 2010)


(Miss 2013)








ISSN 1097-0649 August 2018



WATER LOG














































5 42 USC sect 4015


Feb 15 2008)



8 CRS Report p 15









11

$250000

$368500

88

$30425000000





Stephen Deal



























Endnotes























































2014 WL 4681074 (DNJ Sep 22 2014)



8 Id




Grace M Sullivan


























Endnotes1 NOAA





28 2005)




(Miss Ct App 2010)


(Miss 2013)








ISSN 1097-0649 August 2018



WATER LOG


































5 42 USC sect 4015


Feb 15 2008)



8 CRS Report p 15









11

$250000

$368500

88

$30425000000





Stephen Deal



























Endnotes























































2014 WL 4681074 (DNJ Sep 22 2014)



8 Id




Grace M Sullivan


























Endnotes1 NOAA





28 2005)




(Miss Ct App 2010)


(Miss 2013)








ISSN 1097-0649 August 2018



WATER LOG





















5 42 USC sect 4015


Feb 15 2008)



8 CRS Report p 15









11

$250000

$368500

88

$30425000000





Stephen Deal



























Endnotes























































2014 WL 4681074 (DNJ Sep 22 2014)



8 Id




Grace M Sullivan


























Endnotes1 NOAA





28 2005)




(Miss Ct App 2010)


(Miss 2013)








ISSN 1097-0649 August 2018



WATER LOG











Stephen Deal



























Endnotes























































2014 WL 4681074 (DNJ Sep 22 2014)



8 Id




Grace M Sullivan


























Endnotes1 NOAA





28 2005)




(Miss Ct App 2010)


(Miss 2013)








ISSN 1097-0649 August 2018



WATER LOG



























Endnotes























































2014 WL 4681074 (DNJ Sep 22 2014)



8 Id




Grace M Sullivan


























Endnotes1 NOAA





28 2005)




(Miss Ct App 2010)


(Miss 2013)








ISSN 1097-0649 August 2018



WATER LOG

















Endnotes























































2014 WL 4681074 (DNJ Sep 22 2014)



8 Id




Grace M Sullivan


























Endnotes1 NOAA





28 2005)




(Miss Ct App 2010)


(Miss 2013)








ISSN 1097-0649 August 2018



WATER LOG














































2014 WL 4681074 (DNJ Sep 22 2014)



8 Id




Grace M Sullivan


























Endnotes1 NOAA





28 2005)




(Miss Ct App 2010)


(Miss 2013)








ISSN 1097-0649 August 2018



WATER LOG



































2014 WL 4681074 (DNJ Sep 22 2014)



8 Id




Grace M Sullivan


























Endnotes1 NOAA





28 2005)




(Miss Ct App 2010)


(Miss 2013)








ISSN 1097-0649 August 2018



WATER LOG
























2014 WL 4681074 (DNJ Sep 22 2014)



8 Id




Grace M Sullivan


























Endnotes1 NOAA





28 2005)




(Miss Ct App 2010)


(Miss 2013)








ISSN 1097-0649 August 2018



WATER LOG











Grace M Sullivan


























Endnotes1 NOAA





28 2005)




(Miss Ct App 2010)


(Miss 2013)








ISSN 1097-0649 August 2018



WATER LOG

























Endnotes1 NOAA





28 2005)




(Miss Ct App 2010)


(Miss 2013)








ISSN 1097-0649 August 2018



WATER LOG















Endnotes1 NOAA





28 2005)




(Miss Ct App 2010)


(Miss 2013)








ISSN 1097-0649 August 2018



WATER LOG














ISSN 1097-0649 August 2018



WATER LOG









Documents

Water Log - 'Flooding and Flood Insurance' - August 2018masglp.olemiss.edu/waterlog/pdf/watlg38.3.pdf · 2018. 8. 17. · Inside This Issue . . . After the Deluge: The National Flood