ALBANY, New York, May 3 -- Gov. Andrew Cuomo, D-New York, issued the following news release:

Governor Andrew M. Cuomo today announced that $7 million in federal funding is available for hazard mitigation and resiliency projects through the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. This program assists local governments and non-profit organizations as they rebuild communities across the state that have been impacted by recent natural disasters. These efforts are aimed at increasing the State's resiliency, reducing hardship, and mitigating the risk of loss and damage associated with future disasters.

"With extreme weather the new reality, it is critical that we build our communities stronger and smarter to withstand these more frequent and powerful storms," Governor Cuomo said. "This funding will help strengthen and secure our infrastructure, facilities, and public buildings so that even when weather is at its worst, we will have more prepared and resilient communities."

Preference will be given to proposals that are in the counties declared for the severe winter storm and snowstorm of March 2017, flooding from high water levels on Lake Ontario, or in the fifteen counties that experienced severe localized flooding in late June and July 2017, where the Governor requested a federal major disaster declaration on August 31, 2017.

These counties include: Albany, Broome, Cayuga, Chenango, Clinton, Columbia, Cortland, Delaware, Dutchess, Essex, Franklin, Fulton, Greene, Hamilton, Herkimer, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Montgomery, Niagara, Oneida, Onondaga, Orleans, Oswego, Otsego, Rensselaer, Saint Lawrence, Saratoga, Schenectady, Schoharie, Suffolk, Sullivan, Tioga, Tompkins, Ulster Warren, Washington, Wayne, and Wyoming counties.

Preference will also be given to projects that:

* Realize permanent flood mitigation solutions (e.g., removing homes from a floodplain), and/or significantly reduce a property's risk from flooding, or alternatives that provide benefits like property acquisition and elevation projects);

* Provide a comprehensive approach to floodplain management by addressing flooding at the neighborhood or street level instead of developing isolated or patchwork solutions;

* Support mitigation at critical facilities before non-critical facilities, Severe/Repetitive Loss and substantial-damage properties before others, National Flood Insurance Program-insured properties before uninsured properties, primary residences before secondary homes, residences before income-producing properties; properties in the 100-year floodplain before others; projects that mitigate the largest number of NFIP-insured properties; and

* Achieve or reinforce a community's long-range resiliency goals as identified in plans assisted by the NYS Departments of State and Environmental Conservation, the Governor's Office of Storm Recovery, the NYS Open Space Conservation Plan, and other local and regional plans and objectives.

"Federal assistance to rebuild communities after a disaster is vital to build back stronger and smarter," said Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services Commissioner Roger Parrino, Sr. "I am grateful for the partnership with FEMA and look forward to working with our federal and local partners."

After a Presidential disaster declaration, FEMA provides Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds for states to administer grant programs that support local hazard mitigation planning and long-term hazard mitigation measures to reduce the loss of life and damage to improved property from natural disasters.

Through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, New York State will help to fund innovative mitigation measures that protect communities, while at the same time stimulating local economic growth and serving other objectives. Local officials and non-profit organizations are encouraged to develop such proposals in the form of a Letter of Intent. Letters of Intent can be found at www.dhses.ny.gov/recovery/.

FEMA funds provide 75 percent reimbursement of eligible costs, up to the amount of the award. In-kind services or materials may be used toward the 25 percent non-federal match. While most federal funds cannot be used for the non-federal match, there are exceptions and the State may provide matching funds in certain circumstances for eligible projects.

Application instructions can be found here.( http://www.dhses.ny.gov/recovery/mitigation/FY-2018-HMP.cfm)

All applications must be submitted by 12:00 p.m. on June 1, 2018.

About Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services

The Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services provides leadership, coordination and support for efforts to prevent, protect against, prepare for, respond to, and recover from terrorism and other man-made and natural disasters, threats, fires and other emergencies. For more information, visit the DHSES Facebook page, follow @NYSDHSES on Twitter and Instagram, or visit dhses.ny.gov.

(Legal Newsline) — A federal judge won’t prematurely end a class action accusing State Farm of misleading thousands of life insurance customers by selling policies issued by a company it knew was facing a massive capital shortfall.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Kendall denied State Farm’s motion to dismiss a complaint from clients in nine states who bought PHL Variable Life Insurance Company policies from State Farm and its subsidiaries between 2001 and 2009.

According to Kendall, the complaint alleged four counts on behalf of a putative nationwide class: breach of fiduciary duty, professional negligence, unjust enrichment and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Subclasses from Illinois, California and New Jersey would bring state law allegations. Kendall said she ordered additional briefing on choice-of-law issues for the state law claims and noted those issues preclude her from resolving the dismissal request.

“Judicial economy favors addressing class certification before reaching the merits of the claims,” Kendall wrote in the ruling. “The 14 named plaintiffs are from nine different states and are bringing state law claims on behalf of themselves and a purported nationwide class.”

Although both sides argued Kendall didn’t need to analyze which laws should apply in order to rule on the motion to dismiss, given no differences in state law would dictate different outcomes, she said that framing “is difficult to accept given the parties’ apparent misapprehension of the laws they invoke. Throughout their briefing, the parties conflate the distinct roles of insurer, insurance agent and insurance broker and cite legal rules applicable to those roles interchangeably. Even a cursory review of the relevant states’ laws reveals material differences across jurisdictions.”

For example, she said, under Illinois law, only brokers, and not agents or insurers, have a fiduciary duty to insured customers. But “the Insurance Placement Liability Act bars liability for a breach of fiduciary claim brought against an insurance broker unless it involves the wrongful retention or misappropriation of funds,” she wrote, while “none of the other eight states limits liability for breach of fiduciary claims in this way. Seven states recognize breach of fiduciary duty claims in the insurance context, albeit with their own caveats and nuances.”

She further explained how Illinois law on insurance-based negligence claims conflicts with other states and said she is obligated to consider nuances when deciding which laws to use while analyzing the underlying allegations, especially since the complaint proposes a nationwide class.

Were she to rule on the dismissal motion before the choice-of-law analysis, that may require her “to determine the laws governing the claims of the nine named plaintiffs, potentially dismiss some claims, and then revisit those same state-law differences in determining whether and to what extent a nationwide class may be certified,” Kendall wrote. “Further, resolving class certification first may substantially narrow the case if the court narrows the nationwide class or declines to certify it.”

Kendall acknowledged State Farm might’ve been cost conscious in moving for dismissal before the plaintiffs sought certification, but reiterated that “is not the most efficient course” regarding this litigation and said she wouldn’t rule on dismissal until she addresses certification. Although the plaintiffs haven’t yet filed such a motion, she advised both sides to discuss next steps at a status hearing and denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice.