should not interfere with Congress’s objective of providing affordable flood insurance to the public.”). Here, the complaint is not about the interpretation of a flood insurance policy, but the procurement of one. The denial of coverage for Star Spa came not because the claim did not qualify under the policy, but because there was no policy under which plaintiffs could make a claim. In that case, the reasons for preempting state law — to give effect to the supremacy of federal law enshrined in the Constitution and allow the efficient operation of a federally designed nationwide regulatory scheme — are not applicable. No flood control policy was in place here, and there thus exists no reason to use federal law to interpret the policy. See, e.g., Padalino, 2008 WL 4630585 at *6 (<HOLDING>). If plaintiffs did not actually have a flood
holding that insurance company could sue in insureds name following assignment of insureds interest against tortfeasor holding that defendant insurance company could not be held liable in negligence to a plaintiff for failure to disclose the insureds medical condition where defendant insurance company had not assumed a professional and expert position with respect to the insureds physical condition holding that without a sfip the nfip does not apply and the nfia cannot extend to the relationship between the insurance company and their insureds holding that mccarranferguson act does not apply to arizona laws regulating relationship between insurance companies and their shareholders holding that the special relationship exception does not apply to the relationship between a student and a school