Deceptive Insurance Practices
Life insurance policies can last for many years, and consumers are often unaware of whether the terms of their policies are fully met or not. The complaint for this class action claims that plaintiff Ronald B. Hardy was not aware for many years that an extra interest endorsement on his policy was not being paid and unauthorized charges were being deducted as well. This class action is an attempt to remedy these situations with Transamerica Life Insurance Company, the current insurer.
When a tree fell on Donald Brasher’s manufactured home in a wind- and hailstorm in November 2014, it damaged his roof, fence, and bathroom. Brasher had an insurance policy with Allstate Indemnity Company, but according to the complaint for this class action, the company insisted on depreciating labor costs on the property, lowering costs so that they were just below the deductible.
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.
According to the complaint for this class action, in figuring the value of total loss vehicles, Progressive Corporation uses a system (WCTL) licensed by Mitchell International that results in a lower valuation and a lower payout. WCTL claims to provide valuations based on purportedly comparable vehicle information and objective loss vehicle data provided by Progressive inspectors, such as the vehicle’s VIN number. But according to the complaint, “comparable” vehicles in Mitchell’s system may be in a variety of conditions and the system does not take condition into account in determining value.
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.