Fifth Circuit Affirms Strict “Sworn To” Proof-of-Loss Requirement under SFIP and 28 U.S.C. § 1746

Introduction

Woodland Villas Condominiums (“Woodland Villas”), a Louisiana condominium association, held six Standard Flood Insurance Policies (“SFIPs”) issued by Wright National Flood Insurance Company (“Wright”) under the National Flood Insurance Program. In the aftermath of Hurricane Ida on August 29, 2021, Woodland Villas sought recovery for flood damage to its residential‐condominium buildings. After Wright initially paid approximately 40% of policy limits, Woodland Villas submitted an architect’s damage report asserting entitlement to up to 60% of coverage. When Wright denied that supplemental claim, Woodland Villas sued for breach of contract. The district court granted summary judgment for Wright on the ground that Woodland Villas failed to submit an SFIP‐compliant proof of loss sworn “under penalty of perjury” or notarized as required by 44 C.F.R. pt. 61, app. A(3), art. VIII(G)(4). On May 1, 2025, a unanimous Fifth Circuit panel affirmed, holding that strict compliance with the SFIP’s “sworn to” requirement is mandatory and that unsworn submissions without perjury attestation or notarization cannot support a covered claim.

Summary of the Judgment

The Fifth Circuit’s per curiam opinion affirmed the district court’s summary judgment. Key holdings:

SFIPs are federal regulations under FEMA, requiring insureds to submit a “proof of loss” sworn and signed under penalty of perjury or notarized within specified deadlines.
Woodland Villas’ architect‐prepared report, though signed and sealed and bearing the heading “SWORN STATEMENT IN PROOF OF LOSS,” was neither notarized nor accompanied by a perjury declaration as mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
Unsworn submissions fail the SFIP’s “sworn to” requirement; the court applied the reasoning of Clark v. Wright National Flood Insurance Co., 821 F. App’x 342 (5th Cir. 2020), finding it persuasive authority.
Because the proof of loss was non-compliant, Wright had no obligation to pay additional proceeds, and summary judgment for Wright was affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Ferraro v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 796 F.3d 529 (5th Cir. 2015): Confirmed that SFIPs are regulations under FEMA and that strict compliance with policy provisions is required.
Marseilles Homeowners Condo. Ass’n v. Fidelity Nat’l Ins. Co., 542 F.3d 1053 (5th Cir. 2008): Defined SFIPs as federal regulations dictating conditions for disbursement of flood-insurance funds.
Gowland v. Aetna, 143 F.3d 951 (5th Cir. 1998): Held that failure to provide a complete, sworn proof of loss relieves the insurer of payment obligations.
Clark v. Wright Nat’l Flood Ins. Co., 821 F. App’x 342 (5th Cir. 2020): Unpublished but persuasive authority requiring either notarization or a declaration “under penalty of perjury” per 28 U.S.C. § 1746 for a proof of loss to satisfy the SFIP’s “sworn to” mandate.

Legal Reasoning

The crux of the court’s reasoning rests on two interlocking principles:

Strict Construction of SFIPs: As federal regulations, SFIPs must be strictly construed. Their terms—including the proof-of-loss requirement—are conditions precedent to recovery and cannot be waived or modified except by formal amendment.
“Sworn To” under Federal Regulation: The SFIP mandates that the insured “send [the insurer] a proof of loss, which is your statement of the amount you are claiming under the policy signed and sworn to by you.” Because the SFIP does not define “sworn,” the court turned to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, which allows unsworn declarations “subscribed by [the declarant] as true under penalty of perjury” in lieu of notarization where a federal regulation requires a sworn statement. The Fifth Circuit held that proof of loss must include either:
- a notarization; or
- a declaration containing the words “under penalty of perjury” and sufficient affirmation of truth as prescribed by § 1746.

Woodland Villas’ architect’s report lacked both elements—it was not notarized, and it did not include any perjury attestation—so it failed the SFIP’s strict requirement. The court rejected arguments that the architect’s professional seal or Louisiana’s administrative rules could substitute for the federal perjury language.

Impact

This decision underscores the high bar for federal‐program insurance claims:

Policyholders must adhere meticulously to SFIP procedures. Informal submissions, even if labeled “sworn,” are insufficient without a perjury clause or notarization.
Agents and professionals preparing proof-of-loss documentation must be aware of § 1746’s requirements and include the precise language or secure notarization.
Insurers administering Write-Your-Own policies can invoke strict compliance defenses with confidence, potentially curbing speculative or belated claims.
Courts will continue to treat SFIPs as non-negotiable federal regulations, limiting equitable or “substantial compliance” arguments in flood-insurance litigation.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Standard Flood Insurance Policy (SFIP): A uniform policy form governed by FEMA regulations that dictate eligibility, coverage, and claim procedures for flood insurance under the National Flood Insurance Program.
Write‐Your‐Own (WYO) Program: Private insurers like Wright issue and administer SFIPs but are reimbursed by the federal government for claims paid.
Proof of Loss: A formal document stating the amount of damage or loss claimed under an insurance policy, which must be provided within a specified timeframe and under prescribed conditions.
28 U.S.C. § 1746 Declaration: Federal statute allowing unsworn written declarations “under penalty of perjury” to substitute for notarized affidavits when a regulation calls for a sworn statement.
Strict Compliance: The legal principle that mandatory policy conditions must be met precisely; deviations or omissions cannot be excused by good faith or substantial performance.

Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit’s decision in Woodland Villas v. Wright Natl Flood Ins. Co. reaffirms that SFIP claimants must strictly comply with the “proof of loss” requirement, submitting documentation that is either notarized or contains a declaration “under penalty of perjury” in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746. This ruling closes potential loopholes for unsworn submissions and reinforces the non-waivable nature of SFIP procedures. Going forward, insureds and their representatives must ensure that every proof of loss includes the precise attestation or notarization demanded by federal regulation, or risk forfeiture of their claims.