FETCH, NYC INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO., Defendant-Appellee, Kevin Schaeffer, Defendant, 615 F. App'x 696

SUMMARY ORDER . Fetch, NYC Inc. (“Fetch”) appeals from an August 5, 2014 decision and order entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Forrest, J.) granting Defendant Allstate Insurance Co.’s (“Allstate”) motion for

summary judgment. We review de novo a decision by the district court to grant

summary judgment to a defendant on the basis that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact. Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003). This Court must “construe all evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, drawing all inferences and resolving all ambiguities in its favor.” Dickerson v. Napolitano, 604 F.3d 732, 740 (2d Cir.2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal.

We agree with Judge Forrest’s opinion below that there was no genuine dispute as to whether Fetch’s Standard Flood Insurance Policy (“SFIP”) was a “duplicate” within the meaning of the SFIP. 44 C.F.R. Pt. 61, App. A(l) (2015). Furthermore, without deciding whether the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Manual (“FIM”) has been incorporated by reference into the National Flood Insurance Program’s regulations at 44 C.F.R. § 62.23(i)(l), we recognize it is entitled to deference. See Union Carbide Corp. & Subsidiaries v.

C.I.R., 697 F.3d 104, 109 (2d Cir.2012) (“We ordinarily give deference to an agency’s

interpretation of its own ambiguous regulations_”). We note that Fetch’s SFIP was inconsistent with FIM

Section IX(F)(2), as it did not include the building owner and tenant as joint policyholders in a building coverage policy. FEMA, National Flood Insurance ProgRam, Flood Insurance Manual GR 13 (Oct. 1, 2013). Consequently, Allstate did not breach the SFIP when rejecting Fetch’s claim. The district court properly granted Allstate’s motion for

summary judgment. We have considered Fetch’s remaining arguments and find that they are without merit. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.