The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis M. Sweeney Special Master
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING THE WAIVER CLAIM OF JEAN BOWLING
This constitutes the Report and Recommendation to the Court concerning the waiver claim of Jean Bowling pursuant to Part 1.f of the Memorandum Order of the Court (Document 467). In preparing this report, the Special Master reviewed the motions, memoranda, affidavits and exhibits provided in connection with the process specified in the Memorandum Order. As necessary, the Special Master also reviewed other documents that are part of the Court filings in this case. The Special Master was also provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA") the computer disc of the "appropriate documents of record" for this claim, as specified in Part 1.a of the Memorandum Order. In this case, the documents consist of 353 pages labeled FEMA-000001 to 000353.
Plaintiff's property located at 3739 Thomas Point Road, Annapolis, Maryland, was insured directly by FEMA under Policy Number FL03-0000-5322-5 with a coverage limit of $185,000.00 for the building and $15,000.00 for the contents, with each subject to a $1,000.00 deductible. See FEMA-000005. On September 19, 2003, Hurricane Isabel struck the Middle Atlantic States, including Maryland, causing flooding which resulted in damage to Plaintiff's home. See FEMA-000074.
On September 22, 2003, Plaintiff notified FEMA that her home had been damaged by Hurricane Isabel, and FEMA assigned the adjusting firm of Bellmon Adjusters, Incorporated, to review the claim. See FEMA-000352. Dan Ray was assigned as the independent adjuster by Bellmon Adjusters, and completed inspection of the property on September 24, 2003. See FEMA-000259. On November 18, 2003, Mr. Ray completed his report and recommended a payment of $110,424.71 for the damages to the building, and $15,000.00 (policy limits) for Plaintiff's contents. See FEMA-000261. In addition, there was a replacement-cost holdback of $10,548.16. Id.
On December 2, 2003, in accordance with the adjusted values for the loss, Plaintiff was paid $110,424.71 for the structure and $15,000.00 for her contents. See FEMA-000005. On June 30, 2004, Plaintiff was paid the additional $10,548.16 for the replacement-cost holdback. Id. and FEMA-000259.
Plaintiff decided to demolish her residence and build a new home. FEMA questioned the decision since only two feet of water had entered the structure. See FEMA-000108. Plaintiff sought review by the Hurricane Isabel Task Force ("Task Force"). On August 4, 2004, Plaintiff was notified that the Task Force adjusted some prices and permitted an additional $2,507.95, which Plaintiff was paid. See FEMA-000005 and FEMA-000080.
Plaintiff was still dissatisfied with the result of her claim and sought another review by the Task Force. See FEMA-000074. On September 21, 2004, the Task Force, having completed its review, did not find any additional eligible damage and concluded Plaintiff had been fully compensated for the loss. Id.
In addition to the above-mentioned payments, Plaintiff submitted a claim for and was paid the policy limit of $30,000.00 under the Increased Cost of Compliance ("ICC") coverage of her Standard Flood Insurance Program ("SFIP") coverage. See FEMA-000005.
II. Waiver Claim and Denial
On February 25, 2008, Plaintiff submitted an application for a waiver; see FEMA- 000001 to FEMA-000009. Plaintiff claimed a shortfall of $60,519.18. FEMA-000005 and 000025. On October 28, 2008, Plaintiff's waiver application was denied because it was untimely, and because Plaintiff had not shown in her application that she was entitled to further compensation under the policy. FEMA-000068 to FEMA-000069.
III. Reasons for Waiver Denial
According to the Supplemental Declaration of Karen Christian With Respect to the Claim of Jean Bowling (Document 479-2) at ¶¶11-22, the reasons for the denial are as follows:
The waiver application failed to identify any provision of her SFIP she desired waived. See FEMA-000001 through FEMA-000009. The waiver application simply requested that FEMA compensate Plaintiff an additional $60,519.18, which is the difference between the policy limit of $185,000.00 minus ...