Has anyone ever seen tested the force placement requirements versus borrower contractual authorizations that might go further that the requirements of NFIP? What I mean is that the flood reg says you shall give notice and then you shall purchase for them if they do not obtain, but what if your security agreement goes further and borrower agrees that if they do not continuously maintain all required insurance, lender can step into their shoes and renew the existing policy within the ten day notice period and before lapse? I'm not sure if this would fly or not, but the force place provisions are triggered by lapse or undercoverage and if neither occurred..., I was just curious about others' thoughts.

The NFIP is Law, your contractual agreement cannot contradict Law.