Moffett v Computer Sciences All Combined

8/3/2019 Moffett v Computer Sciences All Combined

1/106

Westlaw Delivery Summary Report for PATRON ACCESS,-

Your Search: TI(Thomas /5 L. /5 Moffett, /5 II & Computer /5 Sciences /5Corp)

Date/Time of Request: Monday, November 28, 2011 11:08 EasternClient Identifier: PATRON ACCESSDatabase: ALLCASESLines: 5663Documents: 19Images: 0

Civil. Moffett v. CSC

The material accompanying this summary is subject to copyright. Usage is governed by contract with Thomson Reuters,

West and their affiliates.


2/106

Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.

United States District Court,D. Maryland,

Southern Division.Thomas L. MOFFETT, II, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 805CV01547.Sept. 18, 2011.

Donald W. Marcari, Frank D. Lawrence, III, Mar-cari Russotto and Spencer, Chesapeake, VA, MartinH. Freeman, Freeman and Freeman PC, Rockville,MD, for Plaintiffs.

Arthur F. Fergenson, Ansa Assuncao LLP, HollyDrumheller Butler, DLA Piper US LLP, JasonDaniel Medinger, Allen F. Loucks, Office of theUnited States Attorney, Steven Michael Klepper,Kramon and Graham PC, James D. Skeen, Skeenand Kauffman LLP, Brett Anthony Buckwalter,Niles Barton and Wilmer LLP, Baltimore, MD, Jay

I. Morstein, Owings Mills, MD, Tyler Brian Raimo,Computer Sciences Corporation, Falls Church, VA,Darren Seth Wall, Department of Homeland Secur-ity, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Ar-lington, VA, Robert H. King, Jr., SonnenscheinNath and Rosenthal LLP, Chicago, IL, Kirk RobertRuthenberg, SNR Denton US LLP, Steuart H.Thomsen, Sutherland Asbill and Brennan LLP,Scott Nathan Auby, W. Neil Eggleston, Debevoiseand Plimpton LLP, Elizabeth Treubert Simon,Pamela Anne Bresnahan, Vorys Sater Seymour and

Pease LLP, Washington, DC, Gerald JosephNielsen, Nielsen Law Firm LLC, Metairie, LA,Peter F. Axelrad, Council Baradel Kosmerl and No-lan PA, Annapolis, MD, Patricia McHugh Lambert,Steven B. Schwartzman, Hodes Pessin and KatzPA, Towson, MD, Craig Russell Blackman, SamuelJ. Arena, Jr., Stradley Ronon Stevens and Young

LLP, Philadelphia, PA, Edward J. Hutchins, Jr.,Stacey Ann Moffet, Eccleston and Wolf PC, Han-over, M.d, William J. Hickey, Law Offices of Wil-liam J. Hickey LLC, Rockville, MD, Debra AnneNelson, William Lowell Mundy, Mundy and Nel-son, Huntington, WV, James Hilton Crosby, CrosbySaad LLC, Mobile, AL, William Gerald Gandy,Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman and Dicker,McLean, VA, Bradish J. Waring, Mary LegareHughes, Nexsen Pruet LLC, Charleston, SC, forDefendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CON-

CERNING WAIVER CLAIM OF FREDERICK

STAIGERWALD

DENNIS M. SWEENEY, Special Master.*1 This constitutes the Report and Recom-

mendation to the Court concerning the waiver claimof Frederick Staigerwald FN1 pursuant to Part 1.fof the Memorandum Order of the Court (Document467). In preparing this report, the Special Masterreviewed the motions, memoranda, affidavits andexhibits provided in connection with the processspecified in the Memorandum Order. As necessary,

the Special Master also reviewed other documentsthat are part of the Court filings in this case. TheSpecial Master was also provided by the FederalEmergency Management Agency (FEMA) thecomputer disc of the appropriate documents of re-cord for this claim, as specified in Part 1.a of theMemorandum Order. In this case, the documentsconsist of 488 pages labeled FEMA000001 to000488.

FN1. At various points the parties refer toClarence and Garnetta Staigerwald as also

pursuing this claim as co-owners with Fre-derick Staigerwald. The determination hereapplies to all these persons.

I. Background

Plaintiff's property located at 9203 CuckoldPoint Road, Baltimore, Maryland, was insured un-

Page 1Slip Copy, 2011 WL 4381760 (D.Md.)(Cite as: 2011 WL 4381760 (D.Md.))

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0157061101&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0155444201&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0248832701&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0248832701&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0325161401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0319514301&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0319514301&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0364428601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0364428601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0174159601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0272175301&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0107482101&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0318900601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0207211401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0207211401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0297235101&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0163068701&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0205878001&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0205878001&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0202672901&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0202672901&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0327695601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0179865301&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0316627001&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0139402501&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0209489401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0209489401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0112782101&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0140390101&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0147699401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0119228201&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0104725501&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0104725501&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0336529501&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0381489001&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0352221901&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0392376401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0392376401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0135729601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0159190701&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0151082601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0221357801&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0301661401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0301661401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0207231901&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0207231901&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0301661401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0301661401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0221357801&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0151082601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0159190701&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0135729601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0392376401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0392376401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0352221901&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0381489001&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0336529501&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0104725501&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0104725501&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0119228201&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0147699401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0140390101&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0112782101&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0209489401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0209489401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0139402501&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0316627001&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0179865301&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0327695601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0202672901&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0202672901&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0205878001&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0205878001&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0163068701&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0297235101&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0207211401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0207211401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0318900601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0107482101&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0272175301&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0174159601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0364428601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0364428601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0319514301&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0319514301&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0325161401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0248832701&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0248832701&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0155444201&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0157061101&FindType=h


3/106

der a Standard Flood Insurance Policy (SFIP orPolicy), Policy Number 1947155378, which waspurchased directly from FEMA. SeeFEMA000005. Plaintiff's structure was insured upto $198,700.00 and his contents were insured up to$32,100.00, with each subject to a $1,000.00 de-ductible. Id.

On September 18, 2003, Hurricane Isabelstruck the coast of Maryland, causing damage alongthe coast including the insured structure owned byPlaintiff. See FEMA000079. Plaintiff's policy waseffective July 20, 2003 through July 20, 2004 andwas covered at the time of the loss. SeeFEMA000124.

On or about January 6, 2004, Bryan Shober, anindependent adjuster from Bellmon Adjusters, Inc.,completed his adjustment of Plaintiff's claim and is-sued his report. See FEMA000393 throughFEMA000411. The adjuster concluded Plaintiff'scontents loss exceeded policy limits and that theActual Cash Value of the damage to the structurewas $82,875.75 after application of $15,428.88 indepreciation and Plaintiff's $1,000.00 deductible.See FEMA000393. The adjuster also concludedthat the full replacement cost of the structure was

$139,773.12 with an actual cash value of$111,818.50. Id.

On January 14, 2004, Plaintiff submitted aProof of Loss for $114,975.75 with the wordsCONTESTING AMOUNT written on the bottom,which was rejected. See FEMA000413. Plaintiffalso notated Plus excess over contents policy Lim-its next to Line 8. Id.

On February 11, 2004, FEMA issued a partialdenial of Plaintiff's claim. See FEMA000345.

Plaintiff was informed that checks would be issuedfor $82,875.75 to cover the damage to his buildingand for the remainder of his contents policy limit of$32,100.00. Id. Plaintiff was notified that he hadone year from the date of this partial denial letter tofile a lawsuit. Id.

On March 19, 2004, Plaintiff was sent a letternotifying him that the adjuster requested a specialassistance review to facilitate the completion of hisclaim. See FEMA000331. Plaintiff was remindedthat his claim was partially denied on February 11,2004 and that he had to file a lawsuit within oneyear of that date. Id.

*2 On April 14, 2004, FEMA notified Plaintiffthat it was in receipt of the re-inspection report. SeeFEMA000315. The re-inspection resulted in a re-commendation for additional compensation, and thereport was being sent back to Bellmon Adjusters,Inc. for completion of the supplemental claim. Id.Plaintiff was once again reminded that if he was go-

ing to file a lawsuit, he had one year from the dateof the original denial of February 11, 2004. Id.

On April 20, 2004, Michael Bellmon, an inde-pendent adjuster from Bellmon Adjusters com-pleted a supplemental adjustment of Plaintiff'sclaim based on the re-inspection report. SeeFEMA000115 through FEMA000119. Mr. Bell-mon increased the actual cash value of the buildingloss claim by $11,659.48.

At about the same time, Plaintiff requested re-

view by the Hurricane Isabel Task Force. On June3, 2004, the Task Force determined Plaintiff wasentitled to additional compensation totaling$50,865.16. See FEMA000111. On June 18, 2004,Plaintiff was paid the full $50,865.16. SeeFEMA000022.

On July 20, 2004, a FEMA examiner reviewedthe estimates Plaintiff provided from Palmer Con-tracting Company and C.W. Over & Sons, Inc. SeeFEMA000186 and FEMA000187. The examinerconcluded the home was poorly constructed. Id.

FEMA contends that The Palmer Contracting es-timate did not provide a sufficient breakdown to doa detailed comparison. Id. C.W. Over & Sons' es-timate contained pricing that was significantly in-flated, and after adjusting the costs, the C.W. Over& Sons estimate was reduced to $121,133.17 (seeFEMA000227 through FEMA000229), which




4/106

was less than the $149,169.79 Plaintiff was com-pensated. Id .

On July 21, 2004, Plaintiff submitted another

Proof of Loss based on the supplemental claim pre-pared by Mr. Bellmon. See FEMA000112. Thissupplemental Proof of Loss was not timely and itwas annotated: Actual Loss-$233,000.00. PAR-TIAL PAYMENT. Id.

On September 7, 2004, Plaintiff was sent a let-ter informing him that the adjuster from Bellmonwas unaware of the Task Force review when heprovided the supplemental claim documents. SeeFEMA000097. The items and figures included inthe supplemental claim from the Task Force in-cluded all the items the adjuster included in his sup-plemental report. Id. Accordingly, Plaintiff's July21, 2004 Proof of Loss was denied. Id.

Plaintiff requested a second review of hisclaim. See FEMA0000079. On October 7, 2004,FEMA notified Plaintiff he had been paid$149,169.79 for the damage to his building plus anadditional $32,100.00 for his contents loss, andPlaintiff was not entitled to any additional com-pensation under his policy. Id. In addition, Plaintiff

was paid the policy limit of $30,000.00 under theIncreased Cost of Compliance provision of hispolicy. See FEMA000005.

II. Waiver Claim and Denial

On December 3, 2007, this Court permittedPlaintiffs to submit applications for waivers toFEMA. See Order of December 4, 2007, Doc. No.196 and Doc. No. 197. On or about February 25,2008, Plaintiff submitted to FEMA a document en-titled PLAINTIFF FREDERICK STAIGER-WALD'S INDIVIDUAL APPLICATION FOR

WAIVER OF PROOF OF LOSS REQUIRE-MENTS. FEMA denied the request for a waiver ofthe proof of loss requirements in an undated letter.See FEMA000075 to 000076.

III. Reasons for Waiver Denial

*3 The reasons for the denial of the Waiver

Claim are found at 1823 of the Supplemental De-claration of Karen Christian for the Claim of Fred-erick Staigerwald. It states:

Plaintiff submitted the same estimates that werethoroughly reviewed during the claims and TaskForce review process. In addition, Plaintiffclaimed his cost to repair ballooned to over$350,000.00, but did not submit a single docu-ment to support or explain this new amount.

Plaintiff calculated his shortfall of $48,530.21 bytaking his policy limit and deducting FEMA'spayments for the damage to his structure. Heclaimed his undocumented repair costs plus theestimates from Palmer Contracting and C.W.Over & Sons, Inc. justified compensation of hispolicy limits. See FEMA000044. Both of theseestimates were reviewed and considered over thecourse of the review process. A detailed reviewof these estimates by a FEMA Claims Examiner,as discussed above, was completed during the re-view of this claim. See FEMA000186 andFEMA000187.

When reviewing Plaintiff's waiver application,the Administrator evaluated the facts and circum-

stances relating to the request. SeeFEMA000075 and FEMA000076. Specific tothis case, the Administrator considered the fol-lowing whether:

1. Policy holder demonstrated additional dam-ages exist that are covered by the SFIP;

2. Policy holder submitted appropriate docu-mentation supporting the additional compensa-tion being requested; and

3. Policy holder provided a reasonable explana-

tion for the delay in submitting the POL.

Id.

In the letter providing FEMA's determination onPlaintiff's waiver application, the Administratorstated:




5/106

... you claim your actual damages exceeded theamount allowed by the National Flood Insur-ance Program Servicing Agent (NFIPSA).Your claim was originally reviewed by an inde-pendent adjuster and subsequently reviewed bythe Hurricane Isabel Task Force. A supple-mental payment was approved by the TaskForce and paid by the NFIPSA. You also re-ceived $30,000, the maximum amount of cov-erage for your Increased Cost of Complianceclaim. Your supplemental claim is documentedwith two contractor estimates that do notprovide justification that additional monies areowed. A lump sum cost without any explana-tion is not acceptable. Another includes up-

grades to the property and does not identifyspecific rooms or measurements. Upgrades arenot covered by the SFIP.

Further, your waiver resulted in a comprehens-ive review of your claim by a FEMA InsuranceExaminer. After further review, the InsuranceExaminer found no basis to set aside the origin-al findings.

Id.

Plaintif failed to demonstrate he met any of thecriteria used to determine whether to grant awaiver. Plaintif's waiver application was based onthe same documents that were thoroughly re-viewed during the claims process plus his undoc-umented claim that he incurred expenses over$350,000.00 repairing his home. Plaintif failed todocument any additional damages he sought wereactually covered by his SFIP. Plaintiff did notprovide any documentation of his actual expensesfor the repairs and simply claimed his costs ex-ceeded $350,000.00 to repair his home.

*4 Accordingly, after another comprehensive re-view of the claim, FEMA determined no furthercompensation was warranted. Id. Plaintiff'swaiver application was denied for a multitude ofreasons, but primarily because he failed to docu-ment any physical loss by or from flood covered

under his SFIP for which he did not receive fullcompensation for.

IV. Plaintiffs Assertions

Plaintiffs' contentions are set out in thePlaintiffs' Opposition (Document 713) at pages 35to 42. Plaintiffs recount the damage to the homecaused by the flood including the structural damageto the home, Id at 35 to 36, and the difficulties thatelevation of the residence would present. Id. at 37.They note that they received a substantial damagedetermination from Baltimore County which indic-ated that elevation would have to occur. FEMAhired its own engineering consultants. Plaintiffsfound various deficiencies in the FEMA engineer-

ing report. Plaintiffs claim that the Proof of Losssigned by Mr. Staigerwald was under protest. Hereceived a total payment of $114,875.75, which in-cluded policy limits of $32,100 for contents and$83,875.75 for structure damage. The Plaintiffs alsoreceived a recoverable depreciation hold back of$15,428.88. Id. at 39.

These amounts were not sufficient to cover theestimates that Mr. Staigerwald secured for repair ofhis home. Id at 39 to 40. After a reinspection of thehome, Plaintiffs were paid an additional payment of

$11,659.48 for structure damage and $1,874.21 forrecoverable depreciation. Id. at 40. Further reviewby the Hurricane Isabel Task Force lead toPlaintiffs receiving an additional amount of$50,865.16.

A second review by the Task Force was reques-ted by Plaintiffs and the claim was reviewed.Plaintiffs believe that the waiver claim should havebeen granted. They believe that the only evidencein the record was that the existing structure couldnot be elevated. Plaintiffs note that Mr. Staigerwald

decided upon the advice of his engineers to demol-ish the home and rebuild on the same footprint.They claim that in excess of $350,000 was spent onrebuilding the home. Plaintiffs claim that FEMAwas incorrect that structural damages are to becovered by the ICC payment. Plaintiffs contend thatFEMA was arbitrary and capricious in their




6/106

blanket denial of the waiver application. Id at 42.Plaintiffs seek an entry of summary judgment intheir favor in the amount of $48,530.21. Id at 46.

V. Special Master's AnalysisFN2

FN2. In their Oppositions at Document No.713 at Pages 3 to 9, Group Six Plaintiffshave raised what they term to be twenty-four common issues that the Court haspreviously considered or resolved in con-sideration of prior groups. To the extentthat these issues are not further cited in theindividual Plaintiffs' discussion of theirparticular cases, the Special Master willnot specifically address these issues in thisReport and Recommendation, but will in-corporate and rely on the Court's prior rul-ings on these issues (see Documents 594,596, 597 and 679) and the previously-filedMemorandum on Role of the Special Mas-ter and Report and Recommendation of theSpecial Master on General Issues Raisedby Plaintiffs and Defendants (Document563).

FEMA in its Reply (Document 715) notes cor-

rectly that Plaintiffs' Opposition is largely a recita-tion of the history of the claim and a contention atthe conclusion that Plaintiffs did not receive suffi-cient funds which Plaintiffs continue to claim. ThePlaintiffs received several reviews including one bythe Hurricane Isabel Task Force that resulted inthem receiving an additional $50, 865.15.

FEMA explained in its letter denying thewaiver claim why it was not accepting Plaintiffs'claim:

*5 ... you claim your actual damages exceededthe amount allowed by the National Flood In-surance Program Servicing Agent (NFIPSA).Your claim was originally reviewed by an inde-pendent adjuster and subsequently reviewed bythe Hurricane Isabel Task Force. A supple-mental payment was approved by the Task

Force and paid by the NFIPSA. You also re-ceived $30,000, the maximum amount of cov-erage for your Increased Cost of Complianceclaim. Your supplemental claim is documentedwith two contractor estimates that do notprovide justification that additional monies areowed. A lump sum cost without any explana-tion is not acceptable. Another includes up-grades to the property and does not identifyspecific rooms or measurements. Upgrades arenot covered by the SFIP.

Further, your waiver resulted in a comprehens-ive review of your claim by a FEMA InsuranceExaminer. After further review, the Insurance

Examiner found no basis to set aside the origin-al findings.

FEMA was not required to accept the argu-ments and estimates provided by the Plaintiffs andtheir engineering consultants. As the Special Masterhas noted in earlier cases, when FEMA is facedwith conicting expert reports, they are entitled tomake the judgment as to which to credit in whole orpart. They evaluated the evidence and had asufcient basis to make the determinations they did.As noted, upon review, FEMA accepted some of

Plaintiffs' arguments and provided greater pay-ments. Ultimately, when presented with the waiverclaim, they made a decision based on the SFIP andFEMA's analysis of the documentation submitted inthe waiver application. There is no indication thatthe determination was arbitrary or capricious or anabuse of discretion.

VI. Recommendation of the Special Master

After a review and a consideration of the mat-ter and the arguments presented by the parties, it isthe recommendation of the Special Master that the

Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgmentaffirming FEMA's determination of Plaintiff'swaiver application be granted; and it is further re-commended that Plaintiffs' Motion for SummaryJudgment be denied.

D.Md.,2011.




7/106

Moffett v. Computer Sciences Corp.Slip Copy, 2011 WL 4381760 (D.Md.)

END OF DOCUMENT




8/106





Defendants.

Civil Action No. 8:05CV01547.Aug. 4, 2011.

Donald W. Marcari, Frank D. Lawrence, III, Mar-cari Russotto and Spencer, Chesapeake, VA, MartinH. Freeman, Freeman And Freeman P.C., Rock-ville, MD, for Plaintiffs.

Arthur F. Fergenson, Ansa Assuncao LLP, HollyDrumheller Butler, DLA Piper U.S. LLP, JasonDaniel Medinger, Allen F. Loucks, Office of theUnited States Attorney, Steven Michael Klepper,Kramon and Graham P.C., James D. Skeen, Skeenand Kauffman LLP, Brett Anthony Buckwalter,Niles Barton and Wilmer LLP, Baltimore, MD, Jay

I. Morstein, Owings Mills, MD, Tyler Brian Raimo,Computer Sciences Corporation, Falls Church, VA,Darren Seth Wall, Department of Homeland Secur-ity, Arlington, VA, Robert H. King, Jr.,Sonnenschein Nath and Rosenthal LLP, Chicago,IL, Kirk Robert Ruthenberg, SNR Denton U.S.LLP, Steuart H. Thomsen, Sutherland Asbill andBrennan LLP, Scott Nathan Auby, W. Neil Eggle-ston, Debevoise and Plimpton LLP, ElizabethTreubert Simon, Pamela Anne Bresnahan, VorysSater Seymour and Pease LLP, Washington, DC,

Gerald Joseph Nielsen, Nielsen Law Firm LLC,Metairie, LA, Peter F. Axelrad, Council BaradelKosmerl and Nolan P.A., Annapolis, MD, PatriciaMchugh Lambert, Steven B. Schwartzman, HodesPessin and Katz P.A., Towson, MD, Craig RussellBlackman, Samuel J. Arena, Jr., Stradley RononStevens and Young LLP, Philadelphia, PA, Edward

J. Hutchins, Jr., Stacey Ann Moffet, Eccleston andWolf P.C., Hanover, MD, William J. Hickey, LawOffices of William J. Hickey LLC, Rockville, MD,Debra Anne Nelson, William Lowell Mundy,Mundy and Nelson, Huntington, WV, James HiltonCrosby, Crosby Saad LLC, Mobile, AL, WilliamGerald Gandy, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelmanand Dicker, McLean, VA, Bradish J. Waring, MaryLegare Hughes, Nexsen Pruet LLC, Charleston, SC,for Defendants.


CERNING WAIVER CLAIM OF MICHELLE

PETRO


mendation to the Court concerning the waiver claimof Michelle Petro FN1 pursuant to Part 1.f of theMemorandum Order of the Court (Document 467).In preparing this report, the Special Master re-viewed the motions, memoranda, affidavits and ex-hibits provided in connection with the process spe-cified in the Memorandum Order. As necessary, theSpecial Master also reviewed other documents that

are part of the Court filings in this case. The Spe-cial Master was also provided by the Federal Emer-gency Management Agency (FEMA) the com-puter disc of the appropriate documents of recordfor this claim, as specified in Part 1.a of theMemorandum Order. In this case, the documentsconsist of 307 pages labeled FEMA000001 to000307.

FN1. The waiver claim was led byMichelle Petro. FEMA000001 to 000009.This claim has also been referred to as the

claim of David Markham and this reportdeals with the claim of both individualsthat are before the court as well as any re-lated individuals as are discussed in foot-note 1 of FEMA's Supplemental Memor-andum of Law. Document 6361.


http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0157061101&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0155444201&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0248832701&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0248832701&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0325161401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0319514301&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0319514301&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0364428601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0364428601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0174159601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0272175301&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0107482101&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0318900601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0207211401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0207211401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0297235101&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0163068701&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0205878001&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0202672901&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0327695601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0179865301&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0179865301&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0316627001&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0316627001&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0139402501&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0209489401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0112782101&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0140390101&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0140390101&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0147699401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0119228201&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0119228201&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0104725501&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0336529501&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0381489001&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0352221901&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0392376401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0135729601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0159190701&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0159190701&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0151082601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0151082601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0221357801&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0301661401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0301661401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0207231901&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0207231901&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0301661401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0301661401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0221357801&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0151082601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0151082601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0159190701&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0159190701&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0135729601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0392376401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0352221901&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0381489001&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0336529501&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0104725501&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0119228201&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0119228201&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0147699401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0140390101&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0140390101&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0112782101&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0209489401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0139402501&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0316627001&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0316627001&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0179865301&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0179865301&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0327695601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0202672901&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0205878001&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0163068701&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0297235101&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0207211401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0207211401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0318900601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0107482101&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0272175301&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0174159601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0364428601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0364428601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0319514301&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0319514301&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0325161401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0248832701&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0248832701&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0155444201&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0157061101&FindType=h


9/106

I. Background

Plaintiff's property located at 1191 Grove Av-enue, Shady Side, Maryland, was insured directlyby Standard Fire Insurance Company (StandardFire) in its capacity as a Write Your Own(WYO) Program insurance company participat-ing in the National Fire Insurance Program(NFIP) under Standard Flood Insurance Policy(SFIP) Number 6001370615. Plaintiff did notmaintain any contents coverage under her SFIP.

On September 19, 2003, Hurricane Isabelstruck the Middle Atlantic States, including Mary-land, which caused flooding resulting in damage toPlaintiff's home. Plaintiff reported her loss to

Standard Fire, who assigned an independent ad-juster to assist the insured with the loss pursuant toSFIP Article VII(J)(5), (7) and (8). The independentadjuster was Jim Hardy from J.E.J, Inc. SeeFEMA00010. A separate independent adjuster,Nathan Smith from American Frontline Incorpor-ated, was assigned to Plaintiff's Increased Costs ofCompliance (ICC) claim under Article III, Cover-age D of the SFIP. See FEMA000075.

Plaintiff submitted a one-page engineering re-port from E.G. Germanos to support her claim that

the building was damaged to the point of having tobe razed and rebuilt. See FEMA00021. The WYOCarrier then hired John Garner from G & A Engin-eering to examine the building. See FEMA000095through FEMA000124. He concluded that not allof the damages were caused by the flood at issue,that some of the damages to the pier and beam sys-tem pre-dated the flood, that some of the piers thatwere displaced or knocked over were not load bear-ing, and most importantly, that the building did notneed to be demolished and could be repaired. Id.

As a result of the inspections by Jim Hardy,Nathan Smith and John Garner, Plaintiff was paid$33,015.35 for the damages to her building underCoverage A of her SFIP, and an additional$29,482.64 under the Increased Cost of Complianceprovision (Coverage D) of her SFIP. Plaintiffsigned Proofs of Loss for these amounts and re-

ceived the full amounts then claimed. See Doc. No.3042.FN2

FN2. This document is the Declaration of

Scott Holmes who handled the matter forStandard and submitted the declarationearlier in this litigation.

Plaintiff did not submit an additional timely,signed and sworn Proof of Loss to support addition-al claim payments beyond the $33,015.35 for thedamages to her building that were previouslyclaimed by Plaintiff and paid by Standard Fire. Id.

*2 Plaintiff did not request a review of herclaim by the Hurricane Isabel Task Force (Task

Force), but was provided notice of this review be-ing made available to her. Id.


On December 3, 2007, this Court permittedPlaintiffs to submit applications for waivers toFEMA. See Doc. No. 196 and Doc. No. 197, Orderof December 4, 2007. On February 25, 2008,Plaintiff submitted to FEMA a document entitledPLAINTIFF MICHELLE PETRO'S INDIVIDU-AL APPLICATION FOR WAIVER OF PROOFOF LOSS REQUIREMENTS. See FEMA000001through FEMA0000037. The waiver applicationrequested that FEMA compensate Plaintiff an addi-tional $68,484.65. See FEMA000005. FEMAdenied the request in a letter dated October 28,2008. See FEMA000038 to 000039.

III. Reasons for Waiver Denial

The reasons for the denial of the Waiver Claimare found at 1423 of the Supplemental Declarationof Karen Christian for the Claim of Michelle Petro.Document 6362.FN3 It states:

FN3. Ms. Christian relied, in part, on thedeclaration led in this case of Scott Holmeswho was with the WYO carrier. See Docu-ment 3442.

Plaintiff based this amount solely upon thetwo-page estimate provided to her by John




10/106

Maurice Roberts, Inc. to construct a new homefor $134,000.00. See FEMA000019 throughFEMA000020. The estimate was based on anew home and not damage to her existing home.Plaintiff's shortfall was calculated by taking the$134,000.00 estimate to build a new upgradedhome, subtracting ICC benefits of $30,000.00(but Plaintiff was paid $29,482.64 in ICC bene-fits), and then asserting that she was entitled toreceive her claimed policy limits of $102,000.00.See FEMA000018. Plaintiff did even less tosupport her claim than those individuals relyingupon the cost per square foot formula calculation.

Plaintiff's Shortfall Itemization was based

completely on the cost of her new upgradedhome. See FEMA000018 throughFEMA000020.

Plaintiff's method of calculating her damagesdoes not take into account any of the SFIP's cov-erage limits or exclusions.

Plaintiff presented no evidence requiring her todemolish her home. To the contrary, Plaintiff ac-tually secured estimates to elevate the existinghouse. See FEMA000157 and FEMA000175.

Plaintiff's sole focus was on receiving compensa-tion based on the cost of building a substantiallyimproved structure.

The SFIP is not a valued policy per SFIP Art-icle II (Definitions), number 28. A valuedpolicy pays an agreed-to amount if the insuredproperty is substantially damaged. The SFIP is asingle-risk policy that only pays for direct phys-ical loss by or from flood, and all that a substan-tial damage determination does is render the in-sured eligible for a maximum possible payment

under Article III, Coverage D of the SFIP of$30,000.00 for Increased Cost of Compliance be-nefits.

When reviewing Plaintiffs' waiver application,the Administrator evaluated the facts and circum-stances relating to the request. See

FEMA000038 and FEMA000039. Specific tothis case, the Administrator considered the fol-lowing whether:

*3 1. Policy holder demonstrated additionaldamages exist that are covered by the SFIP;

2. Policy holder submitted appropriate docu-mentation supporting the additional compensa-tion being requested; and

3. Policy holder provided a reasonable explana-tion for the delay in submitting the POL.

Id.

The SFIP only covers direct physical losscaused by or from flooding. Plaintiff's claim isbased on the cost of a new dwelling without re-gard to the actual loss caused by the flooding andincludes code and material upgrades. In additionto only insuring against loss caused by or fromflood, the SFIP excludes coverage for upgradesand requires the use of material that is of likekind and quality. Finally, the SFIP has a policylimit of $30,000.00 for Increased Cost of Compli-ance expenses and Plaintiff's methods of calculat-ing her shortfall makes it impossible to separate

out these expenses.

In the letter providing FEMA's determinationon Plaintiffs waiver application the Adminis-trator stated:

You claim your damages necessitated the demoli-tion of your dwelling s a result of the flooding.To support the amount claimed, your attorneyprovided documentation for the cost associatedwith the replacement of a new structure. Yourclaim was originally reviewed by an independent

adjuster and subsequently reviewed by an engin-eer hired by your Write Your Own Company,Travelers Insurance Company (Travelers). Theengineer's findings of the additional damages res-ulted in the $27,373.51 supplemental payment is-sued by Travelers. You have received a total of$33,015.35 for flood related damages to the




11/106

structure and $29,482.64 for the covered ex-penses incurred under your Increased Cost ofCompliance (ICC) claim. The maximum amountof coverage under ICC is $30,000. You did notrequest a review of your claim by the HurricaneIsabel Task Force.

Further, your waiver request resulted in a com-prehensive review of your claim by a FEMAInsurance Examiner. The Insurance Examinerfound no basis to set aside the original find-ings.

Id.

Plaintif failed to demonstrate she met any of

the criteria used to determine whether to grant awaiver. First, she failed to demonstrate any addi-tional damages she sought were actually coveredby her SFIP. Second, she did not submit detailedline-item documentation of uncompensated dam-ages caused directly by flooding to her originalhome, but instead based the claim solely on atwo-page estimate to construct a new home.

Accordingly, after another comprehensive re-view of the claim, FEMA determined no furthercompensation was warranted. Id. Plaintiff'swaiver application was denied for a multitude ofreasons, but primarily because she failed to docu-ment any physical loss by or from flood coveredunder her SFIP for which she did not receive fullcompensation.

IV. Plaintiff's AssertionsIn Plaintiff's Opposition (Document 677) at

pages 9 to 13, Ms. Petro states the reasons why shebelieves that FEMA's determination on the waiverwas arbitrary and capricious. Plaintiff first cites theDeclaration of Karen Christian (Document 6362)and states that FEMA's rejection of the report fromE.G. Germanos is wrong. Plaintiff states her beliefthat Ms. Christian statements are patently untrueand accuse her of blatant lying and blatantly mis-leading the Court. Id. at page 9.

*4 Plaintiff believes that FEMA and the WYOcarrier, Standard Fire, should have accepted theGermanos report. Plaintiff further argues that the G& A Engineering Report obtained by Standard Firecan be fairly read to support her claim for replace-ment of the house. Plaintiff also points to the reportfrom the Anne Arundel County Government whichfound the house to be significantly damaged. Id.at page 11. Plaintiff asserts that FEMA and spe-cifically Ms. Christian have engaged in a slantedinterpretation of the G & A Engineering Reportespecially as it pertains to foundational and struc-tural issues. Plaintiff concludes that FEMA andStandard (Travelers) did not like the claimMarkham/Petro presented to them and they, well

after the storm, went about creating and fabricatingdocumentation to low-ball the claim.

Plaintiff does acknowledge a minor miscalcula-tion of the amount received for the ICC claim. Itwas stated as $30,000, but they agree they received$29, 482.64. Id. at page 13.

Plaintiffs seek the entry of summary judgmentin their favor in the amount of $68,484.65. Id. atpage 50.

V. Special Master's Analysis

FN4

FN4. In their Oppositions at Document No.677 at Pages 3 to 9, Group Five Plaintiffshave raised what they term to be twenty-four common issues that the Court haspreviously considered or resolved in con-sideration of prior groups. To the extentthat these issues are not further cited in theindividual Plaintiffs discussion of theirparticular cases, the Special Master willnot specifically address these issues in this

Report and Recommendation, but will in-corporate and rely on the Courts priorrulings on these issues (see Documents594, 596, 597 and 679) and the previously-filed Memorandum on Role of the SpecialMaster and Report and Recommendationof the Special Master on General Issues




12/106

Raised by Plaintiffs and Defendants(Document 563).

Plaintiff's claim for waiver was originally

based on the square footage formula derived fromthe cost of new construction. FEMA 000018. In thiscase the new home had the same square footage asthe demolished home. This formula has howeverbeen repeatedly rejected by the District Court.See,e.g. Memorandum Opinion at to Group 3Householdrs filed August 3, 2011. Document 693.In apparent recognition of this rejection,Plaintiffhas now shifted her arguments in the oppositionfiled to FEMA's motion for summary judgment toattempt to raise other issues.

Plaintiff now claims, as the Special Masterreads it, that FEMA and Standard (Travelers) wereengaged in a conspiracy to deny this claim and ig-nore the evidence that Plaintiffs had submittedshortly after the flood in favor of other reports sub-sequently obtained. Plaintiff makes various claimsof blatant lying and blatantly misleading theCourt by Ms. Christian and FEMA which presum-ably would also extend to FEMAs counsel of re-cord. Document 677 at page 9.

In the Special Master's view these assertionsare overwrought, not supported by the evidence ofrecord and detract from the purpose of the reviewof the waiver claim that is at issue. They are littlemore than bald allegations about the process ofclaim analysis and review of the waiver applica-tions. These claims have been rejected to this pointby the U.S. District Court.

There is no doubt that the report obtained byPlaintiff in September, 2003 was very supportive ofher claim. The one page report was by E.S.

Germanos, a professional engineer with AssociatedDesigners, Inc. (FEMA 000021). The engineer con-cluded that the house would have to be demolishedand rebuilt, but the report contained no detail norsupporting analysis. When the report was submittedto the adjuster he concluded that his own inspectionof the property did not support the conclusions of

the report and he recommended that Standard en-gage an engineering firm to do a full analysis. Thenarrative reports in the file do not show any con-spiracy to deny the claim, but a recognition that theGermanos report although not in line with the adjuster analysis,would have to be evaluated and thatthe best way to do it was to hire an engineeringfirm to evaluate the property. See FEMA 000263and 000270 to 000272. This was done and G & AEngineering Consultants provided a comprehensivereport that on review does not appear to be onesided. FEMA 000022 to 000030

FN5. This report

concluded that not all of the damages were causedby the flood at issue, that some of the damages tothe pier and beam system pre-dated the flood, that

some of the piers that were displaced or knockedover were not load bearing, and most importantly,that the building did not need to be demolished andcould be repaired. Id.

FN5. The full G & A report is in the recordat FEMA 000095 to 000124 which in-cludes the drawings and photos whichwere attached to it.

*5 As Plaintiff herself notes, G & A did agreewith some of the findings of Plaintiff's engineer,

but disagreed with others. G & A found that that thedamage could be repaired and set out what the re-pairs would entail. Comparing the Germanos reportand the G & A side by side, it is hard to faultFEMA for giving more weight to the very detailedG & A report since it is documented in great detailwhile the Germanos report is simply conclusionswith no analysis. If detail behind the Germanos re-port does exist, there is no explanation as to why itwas not submitted with the waiver application in2008.

As FEMA notes in their Reply (Document 688)at page 6, Plaintiffs January 14, 2004 Proof ofLoss was based on the adjuster's review of the in-terior damage and the repairs recommended by G &A. In addition, they were paid $29,482.64 on theirICC claim. These claims were paid in full on thesesubmissions and as FEMA notes this Plaintiff al-




13/106

though possessing the engineering report days afterthe flood surprisingly did not seek any review bythe Hurricane Isabel Task Force which was avail-able to her at no cost and made no further claim un-til the waiver application was filed in 2008 as a res-ult of this court's ruling.

Plaintiffs' objections appear to be that FEMAand Standard (Travelers) chose to accept the en-gineering report they obtained rather than the reportthat Plaintiff presented. There is no indication thatthe G & A engineering firm was in any way notconducting a professional and good faith analysis.To the extent that there were conflicting evidenceand opinions, FEMA was entitled to evaluate the

reports and accept those reports or portions of re-ports it found most persuasive and in accord withthe requirements of the SFIP. There is no indicationof any personal animus to the Plaintiff or of anyconspiracy to low ball the adjustment. A reviewof the record including the full file of the adjustersthat has been presented instead appear to support anattempt to adjust the claim in a fair and balancedfashion.

Plaintiffs also rely on the significant damagereport submitted by Anne Arundel County's Depart-

ment of Inspections and Permits, FEMA 000275 to000276, which was a necessary pre-condition forthe ICC payment. The ICC payment under Part Dwas made based on this report and, as has beenstated many times in the review of these cases,these letters do not establish that Part A claimsmust be paid. As FEMA notes, the Anne ArundelCounty estimate of damage was $45,888.41(FEMA000033) which is significantly less thanPlaintiffs' current claim for policy limits of$102,000.00. FEMA Reply at page 6.

VI. Recommendation of the Special MasterAfter a review and a consideration of the mat-

ter and the arguments presented by the parties, it isthe recommendation of the Special Master that theDefendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgmentaffirming FEMAs determination of Plaintiff'swaiver application be granted; and it is further re-

commended that Plaintiff's Motion for SummaryJudgment be denied.

D.Md.,2011.

Moffett v. Computer Sciences Corp.Slip Copy, 2011 WL 3439277 (D.Md.)

END OF DOCUMENT




14/106





Defendants.



Arthur F. Fergenson, Ansa Assuncao LLP, HollyDrumheller Butler, DLA Piper U.S. LLP, JasonDaniel Medinger, Allen F. Loucks, Office of theUnited States Attorney, Steven Michael Klepper,Kramon and Graham PC, James D. Skeen, Skeenand Kauffman LLP, Brett Anthony Buckwalter,Niles Barton and Wilmer LLP, Baltimore, MD, Jay

I. Morstein, Owings Mills, MD, Tyler Brian Raimo,Computer Sciences Corporation, Falls Church, VA,Darren Seth Wall, Department of Homeland Secur-ity, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Ar-lington, VA, Robert H. King, Jr., SonnenscheinNath and Rosenthal LLP, Chicago, IL, Kirk RobertRuthenberg, SNR Denton U.S. LLP, Steuart H.Thomsen, Sutherland Asbill and Brennan LLP,Scott Nathan Auby, W. Neil Eggleston, Debevoiseand Plimpton LLP, Elizabeth Treubert Simon,Pamela Anne Bresnahan, Vorys Sater Seymour and

Pease LLP, Washington, DC, Gerald JosephNielsen, Nielsen Law Firm LLC, Metairie, LA,Peter F. Axelrad, Council Baradel Kosmerl and No-lan PA, Annapolis, MD, Patricia McHugh Lambert,Steven B. Schwartzman, Hodes Pessin and KatzPA, Towson, MD, Craig Russell Blackman, SamuelJ. Arena, Jr., Stradley Ronon Stevens and Young

LLP, Philadelphia, PA, Edward J. Hutchins, Jr.,Stacey Ann Moffet, Eccleston and Wolf PC, Han-over, MD, William J. Hickey, Law Offices of Willi-am J. Hickey LLC, Rockville, MD, Debra AnneNelson, William Lowell Mundy, Mundy and Nel-son, Huntington, WV, James Hilton Crosby, CrosbySaad LLC, Mobile, AL, William Gerald Gandy,Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman and Dicker,McLean, VA, Bradish J. Waring, Mary LegareHughes, Nexsen Pruet LLC, Charleston, SC, forDefendants.


CERNING WAIVER CLAIM OF DAVID L. AND

BEVERLY MOTTA


mendation to the Court concerning the waiver claimof David L. and Beverly Motta pursuant to Part 1.fof the Memorandum Order of the Court (Document467). In preparing this report, the Special Masterreviewed the motions, memoranda, affidavits andexhibits provided in connection with the processspecified in the Memorandum Order. As necessary,

the Special Master also reviewed other documentsthat are part of the Court filings in this case. TheSpecial Master was also provided by the FederalEmergency Management Agency (FEMA) thecomputer disc of the appropriate documents of re-cord for this claim, as specified in Part 1.a of theMemorandum Order. In this case, the documentsconsist of 183 pages labeled FEMA000001 to000183.

I. Background

Plaintiffs' property located at 8812 Hinton Av-

enue, Millers Island, Maryland, was insured by Se-lective Insurance Company of the Southeast(Selective) under Policy Number 0000062738,with a coverage limit of $250,000.00 for theirbuilding with a $5,000.00 deductible.FN1 SeeFEMA000005 and 000036. Plaintiffs also main-tained contents coverage with a coverage limit of


http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0157061101&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0155444201&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0248832701&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0248832701&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0325161401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0319514301&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0319514301&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0364428601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0364428601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0174159601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0272175301&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0107482101&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0318900601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0207211401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0207211401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0297235101&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0163068701&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0205878001&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0205878001&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0202672901&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0202672901&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0327695601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0179865301&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0316627001&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0139402501&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0209489401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0209489401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0112782101&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0140390101&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0147699401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0119228201&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0104725501&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0104725501&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0336529501&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0381489001&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0352221901&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0392376401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0392376401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0135729601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0159190701&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0151082601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0221357801&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0301661401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0301661401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0207231901&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0207231901&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0301661401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0301661401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0221357801&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0151082601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0159190701&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0135729601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0392376401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0392376401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0352221901&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0381489001&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0336529501&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0104725501&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0104725501&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0119228201&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0147699401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0140390101&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0112782101&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0209489401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0209489401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0139402501&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0316627001&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0179865301&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0327695601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0202672901&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0202672901&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0205878001&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0205878001&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0163068701&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0297235101&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0207211401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0207211401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0318900601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0107482101&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0272175301&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0174159601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0364428601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0364428601&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0319514301&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0319514301&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0325161401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0248832701&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0248832701&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0155444201&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0157061101&FindType=h


15/106

$68,600.00 with a $2,000.00 deductible. SeeFEMA000005.

FN1. For clarification, Plaintiffs David L.

and Beverly Motta own the insured prop-erty at issue although only Beverly Mottais the named insured in the Standard FloodInsurance Policy (SFIP).

On or about September 18, 2003, HurricaneIsabel struck the Middle Atlantic States, includingMaryland, which caused flooding resulting in dam-age to Plaintiffs' home. See FEMA000141.Plaintiffs, with the assistance of their public adjuster, submitted timely Proofs of Loss totaling$194,365.12. See Doc. No. 3182 at 119.

On October 9, 2003, Selective issued toPlaintiffs a check in the amount of $25,000.00 as anadvance payment on their contents claim. SeeFEMA000373. On December 23, 2003, Selectiveissued Plaintiffs a second check in the amount of$43,600 for the remaining policy limits on theircontents claim. See FEMA000564.

On March 30, 2004, Selective issued Plaintiffsa check in the amount of $50,000.00 as an advancepayment on their Building claim. SeeFEMA000563. Selective issued Plaintiffs another$50,000.00 advance payment check on or aboutApril 22, 2004. See FEMA000464. On June 28,2004, as a result of the Hurricane Isabel Task Forcereview, Selective issued Plaintiffs a supplementalpayment check for building coverage totaling$34,312.89. See FEMA000466. Additional supple-mental building checks were issued to Plaintiffs onAugust 16, 2004 ($10,000.00), September 10, 2004($10,000.00), September 21, 2004 ($6,279.89), andOctober 13, 2004 ($8,426.22). See FEMA000473

through FEMA000475, and 000481.

Plaintiffs were paid a total of $169,019.00 un-der their building coverage and policy limits of$68,600.00 under their contents coverage. SeeFEMA000005. The amount Plaintiffs received inbuilding coverage was less than the $194,365.12

they requested on their timely Proof of Loss.


On December 3, 2007, this Court permitted

Plaintiffs to submit applications for waivers toFEMA. See Doc. No. 196 and Doc. No. 197, Orderof December 4, 2007. On February 25, 2008,Plaintiffs submitted to FEMA a document entitledPLAINTIFFS DAVID L. AND BEVERLYMOTTA INDIVIDUAL APPLICATION FORWAIVER OF PROOF OF LOSS REQUIRE-MENTS. The waiver application requested thatFEMA compensate Plaintiffs an additional$47,195.51. See FEMA000005. FEMA denied therequest in a letter dated July 31, 2008. See

FEMA000080 to 000081.III. Reasons for Waiver Denial

*2 The reasons for the denial of the WaiverClaim are found at 1119 of the SupplementalDeclaration of Karen Christian for the Claim ofTodd and Jean Lewis FN2. Document 6422. Itstates:

FN2. Ms. Christian also relied on the De-claration of Deborah Gangemi of SelectiveInsurance which is part of the court file in

this case. See Document 3182.Plaintiffs' $47,195.51 shortfall was based on

their assertion that the total FEMA payments forbuilding coverage in the amount of $169,019.00(including the $5,000 deductible) did not coverall the expenses required to repair their homewhich totaled $221,214.51. Id.

The maximum recovery Plaintiffs may receivefor building coverage here is $25,346.12(difference between their timely Proof of Loss-$194,365.12 and amounts already paid for build-ing coverage-$169,019.00). See Doc. No. 3182at 119.

Plaintiffs' claimed shortfall amount of$47,195.51 exceeds the amount Plaintiffs claimedon their timely Proof of Loss amount




16/106

($194,365.12) by $21,849.39.

A review of Plaintiffs' shortfall itemization andsupporting documents indicates that these were

the same documents reviewed by the NationalFlood Insurance Program, Bureau and StatisticalAgent, the General Adjuster, Hurricane IsabelTask Force and by FEMA. See FEMA000051through FEMA000065. There is no evidencePlaintiffs are entitled to any additional compensa-tion.

When reviewing Plaintiffs' waiver application,the Administrator evaluated the facts and circum-stances relating to the request. SeeFEMA000080 and FEMA000081. Specific tothis case, the Administrator considered the fol-lowing whether:

1. Policy holder demonstrated additional damagesexist that are covered by the SFIP;

2. Policy holder submitted appropriate document-ation supporting the additional compensation be-ing requested; and

3. Policy holder provided a reasonable explana-tion for the delay in submitting the POL.

Id.

In the letter providing FEMA's determinationon Plaintiff's waiver application, the Administrat-or stated:

... you claim your expenses for repair of yourhome exceeded the amount paid to you by yourWrite Your Own Company, Selective Insur-ance Company (Selective). To support theamount claimed, you provided receipts for your

cost spent to repair your home. Your claim wasoriginally reviewed by an independent adjusterand subsequently reviewed by the HurricaneIsabel Task Force that recommended two sup-plemental payments that were issued by Select-ive. All reviews of your claim concluded thatthe final evaluation of your claim was accurate.

The current documents presented appear to bethe same items presented during the handlingof your claim with FEMA and the HurricaneIsabel Task Force. Several of the items presen-ted were previously denied as they are notcovered by the SFIP (detached carport) or in-volved betterment (floor joists and fixture re-placement).

Further, your waiver resulted in a comprehens-ive review of your claim by a FEMA InsuranceExaminer. After further review, the InsuranceExaminer found no basis to set aside the origin-al findings.

*3 Id.

Plaintifs' waiver application does not meet thecriteria for approval because they failed todemonstrate any additional damages sought wereactually covered by their SFIP.

Plaintiffs' shortfall included Increased Cost ofCompliance line items (Plaintiffs did not make aclaim for these expenses), spiral staircase re-placement, kitchen counters (uncertain of con-tractor-no name), plumbing expenses, and pre-existing structural damage. See FEMA000051.Plaintiffs were either not entitled to compensa-tion for these items or there was no explanationof how the claim related to the flood loss.

Accordingly, after another comprehensive re-view of the claim, FEMA determined no furthercompensation was warranted. Id. Plaintiffs'waiver application was denied for a multitude ofreasons, but primarily because they failed to doc-ument any physical loss by or from flood coveredunder their SFIP for which they did not receivefull compensation for.

IV. Plaintiffs' AssertionsPlaintiffs contends that FEMA has agreed that

a timely POL was filed in this case and that$25,346.12 is now due to Plaintiffs. They seek tohave this paid at this time.




17/106

Plaintiffs also seek an additional $21,849.39.They claim that structural damage of $2,000 shouldbe paid based on what they view as a concession byFEMA's agent. Furthermore, they contend that theentire structural damage amount ($10,000.00 more)should be paid based on the Tanner and Sons re-port. Based on Plaintiff's review, they allege thatthe remaining shortfall of $19,849.49 should bepaid since they believe that FEMA agent's did notcorrectly evaluate the shortfall claim.

V. Special Master's AnalysisFN3

FN3. In their Oppositions at Document No.677 at Pages 3 to 9, Group Five Plaintiffshave raised what they term to be twenty-four common issues that the Court haspreviously considered or resolved in con-sideration of prior groups. To the extentthat these issues are not further cited in theindividual Plaintiffs' discussion of theirparticular cases, the Special Master willnot specifically address these issues in thisReport and Recommendation, but will in-corporate and rely on the Court's prior rul-ings on these issues (see Documents 594,596, 597 and 679) and the previously-filed

Memorandum on Role of the Special Mas-ter and Report and Recommendation of theSpecial Master on General Issues Raisedby Plaintiffs and Defendants (Document563).

FEMA view of the Plaintiffs' claim is substan-tially different than Plaintiff has set out above.FEMA does not concede that the $25,346.12 is dueand owing to Plaintiffs. Instead, they acknowledgethat this amount is the difference between theamount they were paid by Selective ($169,019.00)

and the amount they claimed on their timely sub-mitted Proof of Loss ($194,365.12). FEMA ac-knowledges that a claim in the $25,346.12 amountcan proceed against Selective, but they assert thatthere is no concession that the claim has ultimatemerit or that FEMA or Selective has waived anydefenses they may have. The Special Master agrees

with FEMA on this issue. That claim should pro-ceed independent of the review of the waiver denialprocess that is being conducted here.

As far as the waiver portion of the review isconcerned, it involves any claim above the timelysubmitted Proof of Loss claim and is limited to$21,849.39. FEMA argues that the record does notshow that any claimed shortfall above the$194,365.12 level has been shown. As far as the ar-guments concerning the Tanner report and the con-tention that preexisting structural damage shouldnot be considered, FEMA notes that these were notpresented in the waiver application and should notnow be allowed to be raised. This appears to be the

case.*4 The Special Master concurs with FEMA

that Plaintiffs should be allowed to proceed withtheir t imely fi led POL up to the amount of$194,365.12, but that FEMA has not conceded thatany payment above $169,019.00 already paidshould be paid. As to Plaintiffs other arguments,they have not shown that FEMA's denial of thewaiver application was either arbitrary or capri-cious or an abuse of discretion. The reasons givenby FEMA in Part III above for denial of the waiver

application are more than adequate to support itsdecision. Plaintiffs however may pursue their claimto receive compensation up to $194,365.12 includ-ing the sums already received by Plaintiffs..

VI. Recommendation of the Special Master

After a review and a consideration of the mat-ter and the arguments presented by the parties, it isthe recommendation of the Special Master that theDefendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgmentaffirming FEMA's determination of Plaintiff'swaiver application be granted but that Plaintiffs'

claim arising out of the disallowance or partial dis-allowance of their timely filed Proof of Loss shallproceed against Defendant Selective InsuranceCompany of the Southeast limited to the amountspecified in the disallowed timely filed Proof ofLoss; and it is further recommended that Plaintiff'sMotion for Summary Judgment be denied.




18/106

D.Md.,2011.Moffett v. Computer Sciences Corp.Slip Copy, 2011 WL 3439281 (D.Md.)

END OF DOCUMENT




19/106





Defendants.



Arthur F. Fergenson, Ansa Assuncao LLP, HollyDrumheller Butler, DLA Piper US LLP, JasonDaniel Medinger, Allen F. Loucks, Office of theUnited States Attorney, Steven Michael Klepper,Kramon and Graham PC, James D. Skeen, Skeenand Kauffman LLP, Brett Anthony Buckwalter,Niles Barton and Wilmer LLP, Baltimore, MD, Jay

I. Morstein, Owings Mills, MD, Tyler Brian Raimo,Computer Sciences Corporation, Falls Church, VA,Darren Seth Wall, Dep

Date post:	06-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	thalia-sanders
View:	223 times
Download:	0 times