Bank of America Hazard Insurance Lawsuit Reversed
The bank of America hazard insurance lawsuit was filed by borrowers who allege that the lender forced them to purchase an overpriced hazard insurance policy. This lawsuit was backdated to the original policy expiration date. This type of forced placement can place an unnecessary financial burden on a struggling individual. This type of hazard insurance has led to a significant amount of financial hardship for many individuals.
Class action lawsuit
Two attorneys have filed a class action lawsuit against the bank for allegedly violating the terms of its fee refund promise. The plaintiffs, Anthony Ramirez, and Masako Williams say that Bank of America reneged on its promise to refund customers who were charged $35 fees for overdrafts, insufficient funds, and unsuccessful transactions. In addition, they say the bank did not provide proper refund procedures to customers.
This class action complaint against Bank of American claims that the financial institution violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and federal civil rights laws by imposing overly high fees on their checking accounts. They say that these fees amount to an interest charge and should be subject to limitations, but this is not the case. A Bank of America lawsuit against these companies recently settled for $66 million, which may not be enough to compensate customers.
Class counsel evaluates the risks of continuing the class action lawsuit
The lender-placed insurance policies that Bank of America and Countrywide placed on their customers are the subject of a class action lawsuit. These insurance policies protect the mortgage lender when the homeowner fails to maintain an acceptable insurance policy. Plaintiffs allege that the banks and Countrywide forced these homeowners to pay excessive insurance rates while receiving an unauthorized benefit from the policies. While the companies deny these allegations, they have agreed to settle the force-placed insurance class action lawsuit.
First Circuit reverses dismissal of Excessive Bank of America Hazard Insurance lawsuit
The First Circuit has reversed a lower court’s dismissal of a class-action lawsuit alleging that Bank of America required borrowers to obtain hazard insurance over their mortgage coverage. The case involves the mortgage servicer forcing borrowers to purchase more flood insurance than was required by their mortgage agreements. However, the First Circuit found that the language in the mortgage agreement and flood notification was ambiguous. As a result, the First Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings.
Northbrook maintains its cause of action against Great American and Wausau because they paid the excess judgment against Schal. It does not dispute that Schal and Buck were entitled to recover the payments under their insurance contracts but argues that these payments were not legal. The case will now proceed to the court of appeals for reconsideration of this decision. However, the First Circuit notes that there are certain exceptions to the rule that permits the appellate court to review a trial court’s ruling on appeal.
The bank of America hazard insurance lawsuit was filed by borrowers who allege that the lender forced them to purchase an overpriced hazard insurance policy. This lawsuit was backdated to the original policy expiration date. This type of forced placement can place an unnecessary financial burden on a struggling individual. This type of hazard insurance…