of material fact in dispute and that this case may be resolved by the Court on the record submitted. See supra note 2; see also Order 7/28/14 (Document 56). III. Discussion (A) Breach of Contract Claim Psychiatric Solutions claims that Fidelity violated the SFIP by failing to pay the difference between the two POLs ($36,093.77). See Pl.’s Second Am. Compl. (“SAC”) (Document 37) at 9. However, as a government fiscal agent, Fidelity could not properly pay this because Psychiatric Solutions did not fulfill its obligations under the SFIP and plaintiff was unable to obtain the required waiver for the difference in the amounts of the two signed POLs. The SFIP places the burden on the insured to follow all of the requirements listed by the SFIP when filing a POL. Suopys, 404 F.3d at 810 (<HOLDING>). These re quirements include filing a signed
holding that an insurance company which chose not to defend its insured could not later deny coverage by asserting the legally obligated to pay provision in the policy after the insured reached a settlement where the injured party agreed to collect only against insurance proceeds holding that despite assurances from the insurance company that the insured could file the pol after femas deadline the insured could not collect because the insured was responsible for timely filing holding that regardless of the subjective belief of the insured the record established a basis to believe that the insured had committed an act that could give rise to a claim under the policy holding a personal profit exclusion applicable to an insured corporation where the purpose of the exclusion was to exclude coverage when the insured received profits to which the insured was not legally entitled holding that reinsurer could be directly liable to an insured where the reinsurance agent was the ultimate consistent reimburser of losses of the insured and this status was conveyed to the insured