PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Flood / CFPB Mortgage-Servicing Regulations will Impact Lender-Placed Insurance

CFPB Mortgage-Servicing Regulations will Impact Lender-Placed Insurance

April 12, 2013 by Elizabeth M. Bohn

Under Dodd-Frank, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) is authorized to issue regulations that cover the servicing of consumer mortgage loans.   In January, the CFPB issued new regulations (‘the “Final Rule”) that extensively amend the mortgage-servicing rules of both Regulation X (the regulation that implements the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (“RESPA”)) and Regulation Z (which implements the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”)).  The Final Rule gives mortgage servicers new obligations to address errors asserted by borrowers, implement loss mitigation and prevent foreclosures.  It also places new restrictions on lender-placed hazard insurance (which the CFPB, adopting the preferred terminology of the plaintiffs’ class action bar, calls “force placed” insurance) that is purchased by mortgagees and charged to borrowers.  (A review of recent litigation involving lender-placed insurance can be found here.)

The Final Rule will take effect January 10, 2014. The lender-placed insurance restrictions apply to hazard insurance, but not flood insurance. The Rule will require that servicers send a borrower two separate notices before they may place such insurance and charge the borrower for it.  The first notice must be sent at least 45 days before placing the insurance. The second notice must be sent at least 30 days after the first, and at least 15 days before the insurance is placed and fees are assessed.  The notices must contain an estimate of the cost of the premiums that will be charged, and they must state that the coverage may be more expensive, and might provide less coverage, than insurance the borrower might obtain on her own.  Model forms for the required notices are included in the Final Rule.

Even after providing the requisite notice, the servicer may charge the borrower only if it has a “reasonable basis to believe” that the borrower has failed to maintain required coverage.

Some of the disputed issues in litigation over lender-placed insurance arise from allegations, on the one hand, that charges for the insurance are excessive, and, on the other hand, arguments that such allegations are negated by the filed rate doctrine.  The Final Rule imposes a requirement that any charges the servicer assesses for lender-placed insurance “must be bona fide and reasonable,” but the rule expressly excepts charges that are regulated by the states as falling within the business of insurance.  The CFPB therefore appears to acknowledge that charges approved by state regulators should not be evaluated by any other standard of reasonableness.

Of particular interest to critics of lender-placed insurance are commissions that insurers pay to licensed agency affiliates of the banks that place the insurance—payments that plaintiffs often describe as “kickbacks.”  The Final Rule addresses that issue, but only to the extent it involves charges that are not subject to state regulation, and then only indirectly.  The Rule defines a “bona fide and reasonable charge” as a charge for a service that is actually performed, and which bears a “reasonable relationship” to the cost of providing the service.  In its comments on the Rule, the CFPB explains that this definition excludes “costs unrelated to the provision of force-placed insurance“, and costs which “subsidize servicing activities unrelated to the provision of force placed insurance.”

During the comment phase of the rule-making process, the CFPB received requests to prohibit servicers from receiving commissions on lender-placed insurance, to mandate affordable premiums for such insurance, and to impose other, similar requirements.  In response, the CFPB stated that it recognized the concerns underlying those requests, but that it believes the Final Rule’s provisions “provide adequate safeguards to borrowers consistent with the regulatory scheme mandated by Congress.”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

In Late Notice Cases, There’s More at Stake than a Single Claim

Next Article »

It’s All About the Pleadings: Florida Court Expands Insurers’ Obligation to Provide Separate Counsel for Insured Co-Defendants

About Elizabeth M. Bohn

Related Articles

  1. Casting a Wide Net: Challenges to Lender-Placed Flood Insurance Erode Distinctions Between Banks and Insurers
  2. NY DFS Cybersecurity Regulations Take Effect March 1, 2017
  3. Hypothetically Speaking, Mr. Insurance Commissioner, There Is No Need To Answer.
Carlton Fields Logo
A blog focused on legal developments in the property-casualty industry by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Get Weekly Updates!

Send Me Updates!

Focused Topics

  • Additional Insured
  • Bad Faith
  • Business Interruption
  • Class Action
  • Construction/Builder’s Risk
  • Coronavirus / COVID-19
  • Cybersecurity
  • Declaratory Judgment
  • Duty to Defend
  • Environmental
  • Flood
  • Homeowners
  • Occurrence
  • Pollution/Pollutant
  • Property
  • Regulatory
  • VIEW ALL TOPICS »

Recent Articles

  • Third Circuit Holds Harassment Exclusion Bars Coverage for Sexual Assault Suit Under Pennsylvania Law
  • Tenth Circuit Interprets Excess Policy’s Definition of “Medical Incident” as Applying to the Injuries of One Single Person
  • Divided Ninth Circuit Finds Claimant’s Failure to Provide Medical Records Insulates Insurer From Bad Faith Failure to Settle

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • ExpectFocus Magazine

Related Industries/Practices

  • Insurance
  • Financial Lines Insurance
  • Property & Casualty Insurance
  • Financial Services & Insurance Litigation

About PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
© 2014–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Web Design by Espo Digital Marketing