PennyMac Loan Services Force-Placed Insurance Class Action Settlement
All borrowers in the United States who, within the Class Period, were charged by PennyMac Loan Services, LLC under a hazard, flood, or wind LPI policy issued or procured by QBE Specialty Insurance Company, Praetorian Insurance Company, QBE FIRST Insurance Agency, Inc. n/k/a NGLS Insurance Services, Inc., QBE Insurance Corporation, Balboa Insurance Company, Meritplan Insurance Company, Seattle Specialty Insurance Services, Inc., or one of their predecessors, successors, agents, or affiliates (collectively, the “QBE Defendants”) for Residential Property, and who, within the Class Period, either (i) paid to PennyMac the Net Premium for that LPI Policy or (ii) did not pay to and still owe PennyMac the Net Premium1 for that LPI Policy.
Members of the class will receive a cash payment or credit to their account of an amount equal to 10.5 percent or 5.5 percent of the net premium charged between Feb. 1, 2011 and Oct. 18, 2016 for the force-placed insurance policy,
Proof of Purchase
Cooper v. PennyMac Loan Services LLC, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-20413-JEMDistrict Court for the Southern District of Florida
This lawsuit involves lender-placed insurance (“LPI”), which is insurance (hazard, flood, or wind) that is placed on a borrower’s property to protect the borrower and 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, PennyMac pays premiums to the LPI insurer who writes the policy, and then PennyMac charges the borrowers for those premiums. The Plaintiffs have brought claims on behalf of all persons in the Settlement Class (as defined in Answer #5). 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), PennyMac would place insurance in a manner such that PennyMac allegedly received an unauthorized benefit. Plaintiffs allege further that PennyMac did so primarily to receive “kickbacks” from the QBE 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 were fully authorized under the mortgage instruments and by law. They also expressly deny that they did anything wrong and that PennyMac ever received an “unauthorized benefit,” “kickback,” or commission as a result of any LPI placement. There has been no court decision on the merits of this case and no finding that Defendants committed any wrongdoing.
Cooper v. PennyMac Settlement
c/o Rust Consulting – 5301
Faribault, MN 55021