Mortgagors alleged that their lender positioned insurance coverage on their mortgaged property by pressure after the insurance coverage lapsed that they’d agreed of their mortgage settlement to maintain in place on the property. The Court docket had no downside with this.
The mortgagors alleged that their lender breached their mortgage settlement, apparently not simply because the lender force-placed insurance coverage which, because the Court docket famous, the lender had a proper to do below the circumstances.
As an alternative, the mortgagors alleged that the lender force-placed insurance coverage (LFPI) was objectionable on the premise of two allegations: (1) they have been compelled to pay extreme premiums below the LFPI coverage and (2) the lender failed to incorporate them on the coverage. On these two allegations, they claimed that the lender acted in dangerous religion and breached fiduciary obligations below Florida legislation consequently.
In an opinion that’s printed at lower than one web page in Westlaw, the Court docket agreed. The lender’s movement to dismiss was denied.
The case has simply been reported on Westlaw. It’s Meyer v. Financial institution of Am., N.A., No. 3:21-cv-1088-HES-JRK, 2022 WL 18492520 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 18, 2022).
Please learn the disclaimer. ©2023 Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved.
