Gunter, et al. v. Farmers Ins. Co., et al., No. 12-3445 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit against Farmers and American, insurance companies, for breach of contract and various state law violations, seeking recovery for additional loss. The court concluded that plaintiffs' claims for specific performance, unjust enrichment, and bad faith were expressly preempted by federal law; the court affirmed the district court's grant of Farmers' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' extracontractual claims because they were preempted under federal law; and the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Farmers on the ground that plaintiffs failed to file a supplemental proof of loss, a strictly construed requirement, and thus did not satisfy the prerequisites for suing on their additional claims, rejecting plaintiffs' estoppel, duress, repudiation, and due process arguments. Further, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for American, concluding that the American policy was supplemental and plaintiffs could not recover from American for flood damage because they had not exhausted their primary policy with Farmers.
Court Description: Civil Case - National Flood Insurance. District court properly dismissed claims for specific performance, unjust enrichment, and bad faith under their Standard Flood Insurance Policy as preempted by the National Flood Insurance Act. In addition, extracontractual claims brought under federal common law are also preempted. The district court properly quashed the jury request. The district court's grant of summary judgment to the insurers is affirmed, as the Gunders failed to file a supplemental proof of loss and thus failed to satisfy the prerequisites of suing on their additional claims after their home was deemed uninhabitable. Compliance with the requirements must be strictly construed. Estoppel and duress arguments failed; doctrine of repudiation does not apply, and due process is not violated. Summary judgment in favor of supplemental insurance carrier is also affirmed, as coverage is not available because exhaustion of primary policy is first required.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.