Acero Precision v. Bonelli, J.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that insured’s claim was time-barred under the SFIP because the 7 insured brought his action in federal court more than two years after his claim was denied
• explaining that, under the SFIP and FEMA bulletins pertaining to Superstorm Sandy, an insurance company may pay a claim based on an adjuster’s recommendation, but a policyholder who believes he is entitled to recover more must still submit a proof of loss
• collecting cases and observing that no federal court “has categorically determined whether the rejection of a proof of loss constitutes a ‘written denial of all or part of the claim.’”
• plaintiff who sued insurance company following correspondence about proof of loss “necessarily admit[ed] that he viewed [this proof of loss correspondence] . . . as a written denial of his claim”
• “For the same reasons that we must narrowly construe the type of suit a policyholder may bring against a [Write-Your-Own] carrier, we must also narrowly construe when a policyholder may bring suit.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).