Jaime Giangrande-Holcom and her husband, long-time flood insurance policyholders, faced a major setback after Hurricane Helene flooded their home near Tampa, Florida. Despite consistently paying for flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) for 12 years, their claim was denied over a technicality.
The insurance adjuster explained that the couple’s sunken living room was classified as a “basement” due to a 3.5-inch step-down, which made it ineligible for flood coverage. Giangrande-Holcom expressed her frustration, pointing out that calling any part of a Florida home a basement is highly unusual, as basements are rare in the region.
This incident highlights how insurance companies’ reliance on strict technical definitions can sometimes prevent even long-term, loyal customers from receiving support when they need it most. NFIP’s definition of a basement includes any room with a floor below ground level on all sides, even a slightly sunken room like theirs. In this case, the adjuster’s interpretation of the step-down allowed the insurer to deny coverage.
While this aligns with the policy’s language, it left the homeowners without relief at a crucial time, underscoring the gap between policy details and real-world impacts on homeowners.
NFIP policies offer two primary forms of coverage: building and content protection. Building coverage includes structural aspects of the home, such as walls, plumbing, electrical systems, and appliances, while content coverage protects personal items like furniture and valuables.
Florida Couple’s Flood Insurance Claim Denied Due to Technicality Over ‘Basement’ Definition, Sparking Community Concerns
However, NFIP policies explicitly exclude coverage for personal property in basements, limiting support in areas deemed more prone to frequent flooding. Even small structural features, like the step down in Giangrande-Holcom’s living room, can influence coverage eligibility, which is a standard clause in many flood insurance policies.
Determined to challenge the denial, Giangrande-Holcom is pursuing an appeal, arguing that her home does not meet the basement criteria. She highlighted a 4.5-inch rise at the entrance that, in her view, shows the sunken room is not a true basement.
She hopes that this technicality will support her claim, allowing for coverage to be reconsidered. This appeal process offers some hope, yet it emphasizes the importance of homeowners understanding their policy details thoroughly, particularly regarding structural definitions that could affect coverage during crises.
Beyond their personal situation, the couple is concerned that other families in their community could face similar issues. Giangrande-Holcom mentioned that several neighbors with sunken rooms might also be at risk of coverage denials based on minor structural variations.
Their experience sheds light on the importance of homeowners carefully reviewing policy terms and understanding how specific clauses could limit support, especially in high-risk areas.
