Appeal Summary | Appeal Letter | Appeal Analysis | Back
Second Appeal Summary
PA ID# 000-00000; State of Hawaii
DSR ID# N/A; Bill for Collection (Duplication of Benefits)
Citation: FEMA-0961-DR-HI; State of Hawaii
Cross Reference: Duplication of Benefits, Insurance
Summary: Hurricane Iniki struck the Hawaiian islands September 11, 1992. At the request of the State, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) was tasked, by mission assignment, to make temporary emergency repairs to various schools, armories, a hospital and community college on the island of Kauai. USACE completed repairs to the facilities at a cost of $12,167,381. The state had an insurance policy that covered approximately 1,200 buildings of which 16% (200+/-) buildings were repaired by the USACE under mission assignments. The insurance settlement was for $45,722,167 for all the buildings covered within the state. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted an audit of the facilities and determined that the $12,167,381 paid to the USACE was covered within the $45.7 million settlement. After an analysis of the audit, the Regional Director formally advised the State of Hawaii that FEMA concurred with the OIG regarding the duplication of benefits (DOB). A Bill for Collection (BFC) was issued and received by the state on August 6, 1997, for $12,167,381. In its first appeal, the state contended only $5,470,208 of the insurance proceeds could be apportioned to mission assignment costs. The Acting Regional Director denied the first appeal on all counts. In its second appeal, the state acknowledges an insurance DOB for the USACE work performed under mission assignment. However, the State contends the amount of duplication is $7,423,481.
Issues: Did the determination resulting from the OIG audit accurately reflect the portion of work performed by the USACE that was covered by insurance?
Findings: Yes. FEMA's review concluded that the work performed by the USACE was covered by the State's insurance. Therefore, a duplication of benefits exists in the amount of $12,167,381.
Rationale: Section 312 of the Stafford Act, Duplication of Benefits