As set forth above, this case was improperly commenced in state court and removed to this Court on January 11, 2016 – twelve days after the one-year statute of limitations ran. The filing of the case in state court – a court without jurisdiction pursuant to federal statute – did not toll the one-year statute of limitations set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 4072. Because this case was removed to federal court more than a year after American Bankers’ denial of the Plaintiff’s claim, this action is time-barred.

Tolson is the only named insured on SFIP RL00059454, and, therefore, only Tolson can bring a claim against FEMA for damages under the policy. See 42 U.S.C. § 4072; see also Ervinwood Marine, 750 F. Supp. at 280. Additionally, only Tolson is authorized to receive payments from FEMA for any loss claimed under the SFIP.

This is the ‘‘final claim deniali’’ Plaintiff relies upon the holding in M & K Restaurant v. Farmers Insurance Co, Inc. 29 F.Supp.3d 1204 (2014) In M&K the insured (Perrys) received a pre-proof of loss denial letter and waited more than 1 year to file suit. However, their lawsuit was within 1 year of the proof of loss denial. The Court held that an insurer’s pre-proof of loss denial does not trigger the 1 year time period under 42 U.S.C. § 4072. "The one-year filing period begins to run when FEMA denies a claim that is based upon the insured's sworn proof of loss, not from the date FEMA denies a claim based upon an adjuster's report."

Andrus denied, and continues to deny, those allegations and had no such duty to plaintiffs under these circumstances. The plaintiffs also named Selective Insurance Company of the Southeast, who removed this matter to this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 4072, 44 C.F.R. Pt. 61, App. A(1), Art.

II. JURISDICTION *2 The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's breach of contract claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 4072, as well as 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because the controversy arises under the laws of the United States, including the NFIA. Van Holt v. Liberty Mut.

at 296. At bar, Fidelity’s claims against the insureds are borne of federal law, and are predicated upon an exercise of this Court’s jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 4072 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Note, Branch does not challenge this Court’s jurisdiction to hear a controversy involving a claim to recover United States Treasury funds.

4. On May 21, 2008, Harleysville served its Notice of Removal by U.S. mail delivery asserting exclusive original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 4072.