FLOOD03849 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . I. . 9 insurance coverage on flood risk property. Enforcement of the requirement falls to the appropriate Federal regulatory agency. The court noted that the homeowners had flood insurance coverage and had knowledge of a flood on the property before they agreed to purchase the property. In Till v. Unifirst Federal Savin s and Loan Ass'n, 653 F.2d 152 (Fifth Cir. 1981 , the court reac ed t e same result wit more elaborate rationale. Plaintiff homeowners were flooded and sought damages against the bank. The Fifth Circuit adopted the factors aet out by the Supreme Court in Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 (1975): (1) whether the plaintiff is one of a class for whose especial benefit the statute was enacted; (2) whether there is an indication of legia- lative intent to create or deny such remedy; (3) whether such a remedy would be inconsistent with the underlying legislative purpose; and (4) whether the cause of action is one traditionally relegated to state law. It all boils down to whether it was Congress' intent to create a private remedy. In Till, the Fifth Circuit applied the Cort v. Ash factors as follows: ---- It found that the plaintiff is not one of a class for whose especial benefit the statute was enacted. The duty to provide notice is imposed only indirectly on lenders and Congress placed the direct responsibility for carrying out its plan on the financial regulatory agencies. Further, the homeowners are not the especial beneficiaries of the Jones Amendment the intent of which is, in part, to restrict development of flood hazard areas, diminish the burden of Federal disaster assistance, and protect federally insured lending institutions. Second, there is not an indication of legislative intent to create the remedy. By directing the Federal financial supervisory agencies to adopt regulations to implement the flood insurance and flood hazard notice requirements, Congress has entrusted enforcement to those agencies. Fur- ther, Congress did provide for private rights of actions_in other sections of the flood insurance laws. Thus, when Congress wanted to provide for a private right of action, it did so. The court held that the third and fourth factors are relevant only if the first two indicate an intent to create a private remedy. In Adlesperger, et al. v. Eureka Federal S&L, et al., Civil No. 79-1360 (D. Kan. 1981), a different result was reached. Defendant banks admitted