Deceptive Insurance Practices
On or about April 30, 2014, a heavy rainstorm deposited eight to twelve inches of rain across parts of the state of Maryland, causing substantial damage in some areas. The complaint for this class action alleges that State Farm Fire and Casualty Insurance refused to pay benefits to cover some of the damage to personal property owned by policyholders Debra and Thomas Kennedy. The storm caused flooding, resulting in loss and damage to the Kennedys’ property significant enough that State Farm paid out benefits of more than $15,000 for restoration work. However, the complaint asserts that this amount does not nearly cover the losses and that the Kennedys actually suffered loss and damage to their personal property of over $35,000.
When plaintiff Paul Hancock bought a vehicle in Februrary 2016, the complaint for this class action says, he financed it with a loan from Wells Fargo and purchased an auto insurance policy through Allstate. However, in May 2016, the complaint says, Wells Fargo force-placed an insurance policy on his vehicle and charged him $598 for it. The complaint alleges that Hancock repeatedly contacted Wells Fargo to tell them that he already had the necessary insurance coverage, but that the bank refused to return the money they had collected and continued to try to force him to pay for the insurance, including being charged a late fee as soon as the CPI policy was established. According to the complaint, Hancock was only one of 800,000 auto loan customers ensnared in the Wells Fargo and National General Insurance Company scheme, one that pushed 250,000 of them into delinquency and caused the unlawful repossession of nearly 25,000 vehicles.
LPI (lender-placed insurance) is placed on a property by a lender when a borrower’s insurance policy lapses or when the borrower does not maintain an acceptable homeowner insurance policy. When PHH Mortgage placed an LPI policy on a property, it paid the premiums to the insurer and then charged the borrower for the premiums.
According to the complaint for this class action, plaintiff Bob Porto has been involved in home building and kitchen and bath remodeling for over twenty years and has recently bid on the replacement of roofs, particularly those that were damaged by storms. These repairs or replacements for damage are often paid for by insurance companies, and the complaint says that one such company, Safeco, has a practice of approving the lowest bid, even when it knows that the low bidder has no intention of meeting the requirements of the state’s building codes.
The complaint for this class action alleges that Rite Aid’s prescription savings plan for cash customer establishes new and lower “usual and customary” prices for certain generic drugs, and that that price must also be charged to insurance companies and customers paying through insurance plans.
According to the complaint for this class action, Richard Ades purchased a PPO health insurance policy that covered himself and his family from GHMS, a subsidiary of CareFirst, Inc. During the term of the policy, the complaint says, Ades’s minor son had surgery for sleep apnea, a Covered Service, but the company did not reimburse Mr. Ades according to the terms of his policy; instead, it says, the company reimbursed him at much lower rates that involved the terms of its Provider Manual, which was not part of Ades’s policy.
Plaintiff Mona K. Levine insured her property against certain losses with USAA Casualty Insurance. When termites caused a collapse and other damage, the complaint alleges, USAA incorrectly calculated the payment due to her.
The class for this action include all persons in Florida who meet the following criteria:
This agreement settles a class action alleging that Allstate and its companies violated Washington state law by failing to pay medical expenses and benefits, due to policy holders and providers under the Med Pay or PIP coverages in its policies, because of Allstate’s use of a computerized bill review process in the adjustment of claims.
This class action lawsuit claims that United Health systematically discriminated against beneficiaries with eating disorders by failing to cover the costs of their out-patient treatment for recovery.
The plaintiffs in this lawsuit 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, Seterus would place insurnace in a manner such that they allegedly received an unauthorized benefit.