Carrington Mortgage Force-Placed Insurance Class Action Settlement
All borrowers in the United States who, from December 1, 2012 to August 9, 2017 (“Settlement Class Period”), inclusive of those dates, were charged by Carrington for a hazard, flood, flood-gap, or wind-only LPI Policy for Residential Property issued by AMIG Defendants and procured by SWBC during the Settlement Class Period and who either (i) paid to Carrington all or part of the Net Premium for that LPI Policy, or (ii) were charged but did not pay and still owe to Carrington the Net Premium for that LPI Policy.
10.5% of the Net Premium charged by Carrington to the claimant during the Class Period for the LPI Policy, provided each Carrington Settlement
Proof of Purchase
Strickland, et al., v. Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC, et al. Case No. 1:16-cv-25237-JG United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Settling 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), Carrington would place insurance in a manner such that Carrington allegedly received an unauthorized benefit. Settling Plaintiffs allege further that Carrington did so primarily to receive “kickbacks” or other consideration from AMIG Defendants and/or SWBC. Settling Plaintiffs also allege that the way in which LPI policies were obtained and placed caused the charges to borrowers attributed to premiums and the amount of coverage to be excessive.
Carrington, AMIG Defendants, and SWBC expressly deny Settling Plaintiffs’ allegations and assert their actions were and are fully authorized under the mortgage instruments and by law. They also expressly deny that they did anything wrong. There has been no court decision on the merits of this case and no finding that Carrington, AMIG Defendants, or SWBC committed any wrongdoing.