A recent decision by a judge in Maryland has made it even harder for homeowners to fight back against Option One Mortgage’s egregious actions regarding flood coverage. The proposed new Flood Coverage 1 standard would list several factors that lenders may consider in determining whether a homeowner’s flood insurance policy is sufficient. But the issue is not just limited to Maryland. The case could also cover JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, and Bank of New York.
Bank of America
A putative class-action lawsuit has been filed against Bank of America NA for forcing its customers to purchase excess flood insurance. Some homeowners have alleged that the company forced them to purchase flood insurance when it was unnecessary or beyond the limits required by federal law or loan agreements. In other cases, the company bought flood insurance from a subsidiary and charged the premium to the customer’s loan balance. Whether this practice violated federal law remains unclear.
JP Morgan Chase
In a class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, a proposed class of JP Morgan Chase borrowers has been awarded $22 million. The lawsuit alleges that the bank illegally required homeowners to purchase flood insurance, often more expensive than the market rate for comparable policies. Additionally, Chase allegedly charged borrowers more than 10 times the cost of the insurance coverage they needed.
Bank of New York
The Option One mortgage company may have forced you to purchase flood insurance without your knowledge or consent. You may be entitled to compensation if your lender has forced you to purchase an unnecessary policy or a second one after you’ve refinanced your mortgage. Banks may have received commissions for flood insurance sales and added these costs to your mortgage or deducted them from your home equity account.
Bank of Maryland
Using the language of the mortgage agreement, the Bank of America required its borrowers to obtain flood insurance to protect their homes. However, this practice was deemed illegal under the federal Truth in Lending Act, which requires lenders to make certain disclosures. As a result, the lawsuit claims that the bank violated the agreement by forcibly placing flood insurance on borrowers’ properties.
Bank of Virginia
If you have a bank mortgage, and you were forced to purchase flood insurance, you may be entitled to financial compensation. In some cases, banks received commissions for selling flood insurance. You may be eligible for financial compensation if you purchased an overly costly flood insurance policy. To learn if you are eligible for financial compensation, contact an attorney in your area. You may be eligible for financial compensation if your bank forced you to purchase a flood insurance policy that was too expensive.
Bank of Florida
You may be eligible for financial compensation if your lender forced you to buy too much flood insurance or even to purchase a second policy. The lawsuit claims that the bank violated the law by coercing you into purchasing insurance that was beyond what you needed to protect your property. It also alleges that the bank received commissions for selling flood insurance, and then deducted the costs from your mortgage or home equity account.
This settlement resolves federal and states civil claims against Citigroup related to the sale of RMBS that contained known material defects. The settlement also includes a $4 billion civil penalty against Citigroup, the largest such penalty under FIRREA. Citigroup acknowledged that it made serious misrepresentations to the public. In a recent internal email, a Citigroup trader reportedly said that the bank should start praying.
The Defendants argue that Plaintiff Mincel has failed to allege specific breaches of the contract, rendering his breach of contract claim moot. This argument is not supported by the record and demonstrates that the Plaintiffs did not allege specific breaches of the contract. The Court will not find that the Defendants had a legal right to force-place flood coverage. On the other hand, the Court will find that the Defendants’ claims about backdating are unsupported.
The complaint alleges that Wells misled homeowners about the flood insurance requirements and forced them to purchase additional coverage. In other words, Wells misrepresented the terms of its flood insurance policy and charged too much for it. Ultimately, the lawsuit alleges that Wells broke the law by forcing homeowners to buy additional flood insurance. This lawsuit seeks monetary damages and restitution from Wells for the financial losses incurred.
Bank of Washington
If your mortgage lender forced you to buy flood insurance, you may be able to sue for financial compensation. In this case, Option One Mortgage forced you to purchase an overly-expensive flood insurance policy. Additionally, the lender may have received commissions for recommending flood insurance, and the extra cost was added to the mortgage balance or deducted from your home equity account.