Gularte v. Wright National Flood Insurance Company

Background

Wayne and Doris Gularte alleged that flooding damaged their property between January 17, 2023, and March 23, 2023. They submitted claims to Wright National Flood Insurance Company, which participates in the federal National Flood Insurance Program and issues standard flood-insurance policies on behalf of the federal government. Wright paid some of the claimed damage but denied part of the claim in an email dated June 18, 2023.

The Gulartes filed this action in state court on December 30, 2025, seeking $12,500 for structural losses. Wright removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss, arguing that the action was untimely. The court previously granted that motion with permission to amend. In their amended pleading, the Gulartes alleged that they received a written denial on January 31, 2025, and argued that the lawsuit was therefore timely. They also moved to stay the case while mediation was completed.

Rule 12(b)(6) Standard

Wright moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to support a legally plausible claim. Normally, a statute-of-limitations defense is raised later rather than on a motion to dismiss. But dismissal at this stage is permitted when the complaint itself shows that the claim is untimely and does not allege facts that could make it timely.

Statute of Limitations

The court applied the rule that a policyholder under a standard federal flood-insurance policy must sue within one year after the insurer mails a notice of disallowance. The court had previously determined that Wright’s June 18, 2023 email was such a notice.

The court rejected the Gulartes’ argument that the alleged January 31, 2025 written denial restarted or extended the deadline. Relying on Ninth Circuit precedent, the court explained that reconsidering an earlier denial or responding to later inquiries does not restart the limitations period. The period can be reopened only if the insurer expressly and in writing sets aside the earlier denial. The amended complaint contained no allegation that Wright had done so. Because the action was filed more than one year after the June 18, 2023 denial, and the complaint alleged no basis for excusing the late filing, the court held that the claim was time-barred.

Motion to Stay

The court also considered the Gulartes’ request to stay the case pending mediation. It concluded that a stay was not warranted because Wright had an interest in resolving the case promptly, while the Gulartes had not shown the required hardship or inequity. The court also found no sufficient prospect that mediation would simplify the factual or legal issues before it.

Disposition

Judge P. Casey Pitts granted Wright’s motion to dismiss. Because amendment would be futile, the court dismissed the action with prejudice and without leave to amend. The court also declined to stay the action pending mediation.