Deceptive Insurance Practices
Plaintiff Robert Barnes bought a Flexible Premium Adjustable Life Insurance Policy in 1984, but the complaint for this class action claims that Voya Financial, Inc., the current insurer, has violated the terms of the policy in its deductions from the Cash Value savings component of the plan. The complaint alleges that the company calculates the deductions differently than the policy permits, constituting a breach of contract as well as conversion.
Plaintiff Robert M. Randolph bought a universal life insurance policy which is held in a trust for the benefit of his wife, Stephanie W. Randolph. But the complaint for this class action alleges that Lincoln has committed unfair and unlawful acts, including billing for incorrect premiums, collecting “premium load charges,” using deceptive illustrations, charging unlawful cost of insurance (COI) increases, and applying “shock premiums” or “hostage premiums” in hoping of making customers drop their policies after years of payments. The complaint claims that Lincoln has committed breach of contract and violated Texas insurance laws.
The complaint for this class action claims that insurer USAA hired another company to “review” medical claims submitted to it for Med Pay benefits and that that company used unfair systems to refuse, reduce, or deny claims for benefits for injured people. Some of the bills, the complaint contends, are refused via “coding errors, sham medical necessity reviews, and confidential statistical information, rather than the individual character of health care services required by an insured and their related expenses.” For other ones, the complaint claims that payment amounts are reduced by declaring them “unreasonable” or applying PPO or PPN treatment rates that do not apply to the insureds’ medical providers.
Fay Servicing has agreed to settle a class action alleging that when it required residential borrowers to have LPI (lender-placed or force-placed insurance), it received an unauthorized benefit, causing the premiums for the insurance to be higher than necessary.
Mortgage lender Residential Credit Solutions has agreed to settle a class action alleging that when it required borrowers to have LPI (lender-placed insurance, also known as force-placed insurance) on a mortgage or home equity loan, RCS placed the insurance in a manner that caused it to receive unauthorized benefits, unfairly raising the cost of the premiums.
Carrington Mortgage Services has agreed to settle a class action alleging that whenever the company required a borrower to have LPI (lender-placed insurance, also known as force-placed insurance) it received kickbacks or unauthorized benefits that raised the cost of the insurance. The case concerns LPI issued by American Modern Insurance Group, Inc., American Modern Home Insurance Company, The
Plaintiff Roy Smithson bought an insurance policy that had an investment or savings component that the complaint for this class action refers to as its Accumulation Value. Each month, the complaint claims, the Accumulation Value for the policy is intended to change and grow, according to certain formulas. But according to the complaint, Smithson’s insurance company made deductions not permitted by its policy agreements and so have lowered Smithson’s policy’s Accumulation Value.
Oklahoma plaintiff Rachel Curtis totaled her car on July 4, 2017. Since the car had only 67,000 miles on it, the complaint for this class action alleges that Progressive Northern Insurance Company’s payout was too low. The complaint alleges that the company uses the Mitchell WorkCenter program, which consistently undervalues vehicles, and that Progressive adds to the problem by not choosing vehicles that are actually comparable for the evaluation. According to the complaint, this constitutes fraud or negligent misrepresentation and is contrary to the policies set forth by Oklahoma insurance laws.
In 2014, Valerie Maddox was in a car accident. She got treatment at the Tower Health Center, Inc. and assigned the company her PIP insurance benefits for the accident under her Government Employees Insurance Company automobile insurance policy, according to the complaint for this class action. Yet when Tower applied for reimbursement from the company, the company paid 2% less than Tower was expecting. The complaint for this class action alleges that the cause of the underpayment is a misreading of Florida laws and an attempt to make a Medicare provision apply to Government Employees Insurance Company, a commercial insurer.
During 2013, plaintiff Marlene Williams was in a car accident and was treated for her injuries at Coastal Wellness Centers, Inc. To pay for these treatments, the complaint for this class action says, she assigned the PIP benefits of her Geico car insurance policy to Coastal. Coastal submitted the claim, which bore the medical code 98940, to Geico, but according to the complaint, the reimbursement Geico paid Coastal came up short. The complaint for this class action alleges that the cause is a misreading of Florida laws and an attempt to make a Medicare provision apply to Geico, a commercial insurer.