The Debtor’s testimony demonstrates the validity of his Forced Placed Flood Coverage lawsuit against Liberty Mutual. The Debtor claimed that he was paying $886 a month and believed that Washington Mutual would cover the taxes and insurance for him. Moreover, five years of silence is sufficient to arouse the belief that he was paying the correct amount. Furthermore, there was no reason to think that Washington Mutual advanced the payments for his insurance and taxes. The debtor did not know any “additional amount” that he had not previously paid.
The Liberty Mutual Forced Placed Flood Coverage litigation focuses on the company’s failure to meet its contractual obligations to Van Holts, a New Jersey homeowner. The flooding in December 1992 damaged his home and personal property, and the case centers on the damage he sustained during that storm. Van Holts sued Liberty Mutual in the state’s Superior Court, seeking more than $1 million in damages.
Van Holts alleged that Liberty Mutual engaged in an unconscionable commercial practice by denying her claim. The case also alleges that Liberty Mutual violated the Unfair Claims Act and the Consumer Fraud Act. But this argument is largely moot, as a denial of insurance benefits does not constitute an unfair commercial practice. The New Jersey courts have consistently held that the payment of insurance benefits does not fall under the Consumer Fraud Act.
While Liberty Mutual has a stellar reputation for its customer service, there are a few other factors that make the company stand out above its competition. Liberty Mutual is one of the top home insurers, with more than 110 years in business. AM Best rates it at A-, which is excellent. The company offers home, renters, and auto insurance as well as a variety of discount options and easy policy management. The company’s competitive prices, customizable coverage, and a broad range of discounts make the Liberty Mutual home insurance policy a standout amongst the crowd.
The claims brought against Trustmark allege that the mortgage company forced homeowners to purchase worthless flood insurance policies. The banks that forced these homeowners to purchase flood insurance received commissions for the sales. Afterward, the homeowners discovered that the insurance was not in effect. The bank then added the cost to the balance on their mortgage or deducted the amount from their home equity account. These forced policies are unreliable and the lawsuit seeks a judgment against both Trustmark and Nationwide for their failure to comply with these requirements.
In addition to this, Trustmark in this case cited several cases to support its claims. The plaintiffs argued that the claims against Trustmark arise under state law and that the policyholder was in breach of contract. The Plaintiffs assert that Trustmark breached a contractual obligation to the homeowners by failing to maintain flood insurance on the property. They also allege that Nationwide acted negligently in administering the policy.