LoanCare Lender-Placed Hazard Insurance Class Action Settlement
The “Settlement Class” includes all borrowers in the United States who, within the Class Period (as defined below), were charged by LoanCare under a hazard, flood, flood gap or wind-only LPI Policy for Residential Property, and who, within the Class Period, either (i) paid to LoanCare some or all of the Net Premium1 for that LPI Policy or (ii) did not pay to and still owe LoanCare the Net Premium for that LPI Policy.
Defendants have agreed to provide a cash award or credit to each Settlement Class Member in the following amounts: (i) A sum equal to 5% of the Net Premium if you were charged by LoanCare for a flood or wind LPI Policy during the Class Period, or a hazard LPI Policy on or after June 1, 2013; (ii) A sum equal to 8% of the Net Premium if you were charged by LoanCare for a hazard LPI Policy on or before May 31, 2013
Proof of Purchase
Mcneil v. LoanCare LLC.Case # 16CV-20830-KMWDistrict Court Southern District of Florida
This lawsuit involves lender-placed insurance (“LPI”), which is insurance (hazard, flood, flood gap or wind-only) that is placed on a borrower’s property to protect the mortgage lender when the borrower’s insurance policy lapses, or when the borrower does not maintain a homeowner’s insurance policy that is acceptable to the mortgage lender. When an LPI Policy is placed pursuant to the borrower’s mortgage contract, LoanCare pays premiums to the LPI insurer who writes the policy, and then LoanCare charges the borrowers for those premiums. The Plaintiffs have brought claims on behalf of all persons in the Settlement Class. Plaintiffs allege that when a borrower was required to have insurance for his or her property pursuant to a residential mortgage or home equity loan or line of credit, and evidence of acceptable coverage was not provided (for example, when the insurance policy did not exist or had lapsed), LoanCare would place insurance in a manner such that LoanCare allegedly received an unauthorized benefit. Plaintiffs allege further that LoanCare did so primarily to receive “kickbacks” in the form of commissions or other payments from the Assurant Defendants. Plaintiffs also allege that the way in which LPI policies were obtained and placed caused the rates and the amount of coverage to be excessive. All Defendants expressly deny Plaintiffs’ allegations and assert their actions are fully authorized under the mortgage instruments and by law. They also expressly deny that they did anything wrong. There has been no court decision on the merits of this case and no finding that Defendants committed any wrongdoing.
McNeil v LoanCare Class Action Admin