A Florida homeowner is suing People's Trust after it allegedly issued, confirmed, then rescinded her NFIP flood policy in the wake of Hurricane Milton.
The case, filed on February 9, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, names both People's Trust Insurance Company and Top Line Insurance Agency as defendants. The matter is at an early stage, and no determination has been made on the merits.
According to the filing, Svitlana Yaremchuk contacted Top Line agent Jose Rojas on September 27, 2024, looking to secure flood insurance with an immediate effective date. Rojas allegedly told her the property qualified for a one-day waiting period under the NFIP's Map Revision One-Day Exception — rather than the standard 30-day wait the insurer later said should have applied.
The following day, Yaremchuk signed a Standard Flood Insurance Application for $250,000 in building coverage and paid the full premium of $5,312. She received a declarations page showing coverage effective September 29, 2024 at 12:01 a.m. On October 7, the agent allegedly reconfirmed the policy was active and in good standing.
Then came Hurricane Milton.
On or about October 9, 2024, the property flooded. The filing states the damage left the living areas, kitchen, bedrooms, bathrooms, and hallways unusable. On October 23, People's Trust representative Rob Meis allegedly confirmed the policy was still in force and guided Yaremchuk through the claims process.
One day later, the story took a turn.
On October 24, People's Trust allegedly informed Yaremchuk that the policy had been issued "in error" and that her property did not qualify for the one-day exception. The insurer denied the claim on the grounds that the policy "should have been subject to a 30-day waiting period." It then canceled and rewrote the policy after the loss, calling it an "administrative error."
The lawsuit raises four counts: breach of contract against People's Trust, negligent procurement against Top Line Insurance Agency, a claim under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act against both defendants, and alleged violations of Florida Insurance Code Section 626.9541(1)(i), which prohibits misrepresentation of the terms, benefits, or coverage of a policy. A jury trial has been demanded, with damages sought exceeding $75,000, plus interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.
But the case may matter well beyond the parties named. It puts a pointed question to the flood insurance industry: when an NFIP-participating carrier issues a policy, provides a declarations page, and confirms active coverage on multiple occasions — including after a named storm — can it later walk that back as an administrative mistake?
The filing alleges Yaremchuk did not take steps to mitigate flood damage before the hurricane because she reasonably believed she had valid coverage. How that argument plays out could sharpen the focus on how carriers and agents handle waiting period exceptions, and what happens when those exceptions are applied to properties that do not qualify.
