Wells Suffers Setback in Force-Placed Case

Print
Email
Reprints
Comments (12)
Twitter
LinkedIn
Facebook
Google+

A federal judge has granted class action status to plaintiffs in a much-watched force-placed insurance case against Wells Fargo & Co. and QBE Insurance Inc., opening the door to high-stakes litigation over alleged industry kickbacks.

The Tuesday ruling in Williams v. Wells Fargo et al by Judge Robert Scola, Jr. of U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida reinforces banks' vulnerability to legal attacks over their purchase of so-called forced-placed insurance on behalf of borrowers whose homeowner policies have lapsed.

Force-placed hazard insurance is designed to protect creditors in the event that an uninsured borrower's property is damaged. Mortgage contracts typically entitle banks to purchase such policies on behalf of homeowners who fail to maintain hazard coverage themselves and to pass on to them the cost of the coverage.

The Florida suit does not take issue with the cost of such policies directly but instead accuses Wells and QBE of inflating the cost of such coverage by secretly paying themselves unearned commissions.

Scola cited evidence that the activities of Wells and QBE, an Australian insurer that administers Wells' force-placed insurance program, amounted to unjust enrichment and a breach of good faith. In a sometimes harshly worded opinion, Judge Scola accused the bank of threatening to retaliate against the 20,000 homeowners eligible to become class members in the Florida litigation.

"Wells Fargo has unabashedly set out its threats to retaliate against any homeowner seeking to avoid alleged excessive and inflated force-placed insurance premiums," Scola wrote. The judge added that he intends to prevent the bank from "establishing post-litigation, vindictive business practices."

For Wells and QBE the stakes are large, with more than $50 million in premiums at issue in Florida alone. Evidence introduced into the public record in the case could result in further headaches at a time when banks force-placed insurance practices face significant scrutiny. New York State's Department of Financial Services has sent out numerous subpoenas to banks and insurers as part of an ongoing investigation, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has also expressed interest in force-placed market.

QBE pays out 40% of total force-placed premiums as commission to its subsidiaries and Wells Fargo, the Florida plaintiffs charge. And only 7.6 cents of every dollar of premium revenue QBE collects goes to paying claims, according to a plaintiffs' analysis based on QBE data. Such a low payout ratio would be regarded as unacceptable in most states. Guidelines laid out by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners instruct insurers to aim for a payout of 60%.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs also attacked how QBE sets its rates. Camley Delach served as QBE's lone actuary for force-place policies written on behalf of Wells Fargo in Florida, according to a deposition discussed at the class certification hearing. It was her job to gauge the financial risks the underwriter faced. But Delach said in a deposition that she works from her Pennsylvania home, performs no actuarial work to determine QBE's prices, and has "no idea" why QBE prices its policies the way it does.

"It is not necessary for someone to be an actuary to critique this procedure," Judge Scola wrote in his opinion certifying the plaintiff class.

The information about the Wells and QBE practices was presented in open court on February 9. American Banker obtained the case files when they were originally posted to PACER, an online database of federal court records.

Wells Fargo and QBE accused plaintiffs attorneys of "misconduct" for bringing the information into a public forum. "Defendants have done everything within their control to protect the confidentiality of their business information," Wells and QBE stated.

The defendants subsequently argued to the court that a "manifest injustice" would occur if the details of their business relationship were made public. The court agreed on February 22 to seal or redact related information, including much of that described above.

Emails presented in those documents suggest that Wells employees themselves were uncomfortable with the high premiums QBE was charging Wells' borrowers. Following an American Banker article alleging that force-placed insurers were charging as much as 10 times the cost of borrowers' previous hazard insurance, an unnamed Wells executive allegedly told colleagues that the bank needed to rein QBE in.

"[P]remium pricing in unregulated states [those where QBE is not subject state rate caps] is unacceptable, requires immediate address, significant quality/oversight concerns based on loan cited in AB [American Banker] article and the issue found by Escrow team," an unnamed Wells executive wrote in an email to colleagues that was read by a plaintiffs' attorney in court and cited in a now-sealed PowerPoint presentation. These issues needed to be raised with "senior QBE leadership," the Wells official wrote.

"The quotes from Wells Fargo emails were taken out of context," Wells Fargo spokesman Tom Goyda wrote to American Banker last week. In a subsequent email, Goyda called the class certification a "procedural" matter and said that Wells has no intention" of retaliating against borrowers as the judge suggested. QBE declined to comment on the case.

In court, the defendants have argued that their high margins on Florida policies are warranted by risks posed by hurricane-related losses.

Arguments made in the certification hearing suggest that the plaintiffs' intend to focus their case on QBE's "surplus line" status. As a 2011 American Banker story reported, surplus line status exempts QBE from state rate caps and enables it to charge Wells Fargo borrowers whatever the bank will allow. In return, QBE pays Wells commissions on every policy written, even though the bank directly performs little or no force-placed work. Plaintiffs attorneys and consumer advocates have labeled this a pay-to-play arrangement, a charge the defendants deny.

By law insurance agents obligated to seek to buy coverage from state-regulated insurers first and only in the absence of such an option to resort to surplus-line coverage. To protect borrowers and regulated carriers, insurance agents are supposed to document a "diligent effort" to find a regulated insurer. In the case of the Florida defendants, QBE used its own employee, Michael Seminario, as the insurance agent.

Criticism of force-placed insurers goes beyond those selling surplus-line coverage. Assurant Inc. is dominant participant in Florida's force-placed market and is regulated in every other state in which it operates.

A 2010 American Banker story found that homeowner complaints about Assurant and QBE were similar, with both companies being accused of paying unearned commissions to banks, charging high rates and backdating policies to boost premium revenues. One difference is that Assurant's financial filings indicate it pays out the equivalent of 35% of premiums in claims.

"In submitting filings, our actuarial team considers a number of factors including actual experience over a multi-year period, reinsurance costs, and the significant catastrophe exposures and potential loss costs in Florida to help establish our rates," an Assurant spokeswoman wrote in an email.

QBE's unregulated status in some states — and its freedom to charge whatever premiums it wishes — may put it and its bank clients front-and-center in force-placed litigation. Wells argued during the February 9 class certification hearing that borrowers charged for force-placed insurance could have avoided it and therefore should not be permitted to sue over its allegedly inflated price. The court was not persuaded.

"That's like a defense for usury," Judge Scola said. "[Y]ou are going to have a defense that they live a bad lifestyle which leads them to be more in a position to be taken advantage of...? That makes no sense."

Following the Florida class certification, plaintiffs' attorneys intend to file similar suits in other jurisdictions.

"There will likely be national class actions," says Jeff Golant, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys on the case.

JOIN THE DISCUSSION

(12) Comments

SEE MORE IN

RELATED TAGS

Full Retreat: Nonbank Financial Firms Abandon Banking
Insurers and brokerages have myriad reasons for setting up bank subsidiaries, including lower funding costs and a broader array of customer services. But increased regulatory scrutiny is prompting many to change their thinking. Here's a look at nonbanks that have or are looking to shed bank charters, citing the cost and time commitment related to complying with the Dodd-Frank Act and other obligations.

(Image: Thinkstock)

Comments (12)
And then banks are perplexed as to why the public distrusts them!
Posted by Kimberly S | Thursday, February 23 2012 at 9:41AM ET
I agree that these practices are not fair, but this sounds more like the fault of the regulators than it does QBE or Wells. If you fail to regulate the free market and allow companies to set their own prices, they will make as much profit as they possibly can...duh!. So why isn't the parties responsible for installing the necessary legislation to regulate these prices being sued? They expect instead to work under an "implied" agreement in which the banks will implement fair practices by default? That's absurd and nonsensical. Of course they won't, that's what laws are designed to do, and the lawmakers failed to step up to protect the people. I also don't understand why Mr. Horotitz would call the QBE actuary out by name if she had nothing to do with setting the prices. That's an extremely unprofessional and unfair practice as a journalist to launch a smear attempt against an individual who is not at fault. Should she also not have the right to press charges against such unfair practices? Perhaps she should
Posted by Tom S | Thursday, February 23 2012 at 10:05AM ET
Agree with Tom, the legislative process is not getting to the root of the problem. The entire housing debacle was also a result of no baking regulations and this is really no different. This is like trying to press charges against thievery when no laws were every passed against stealing. and yes I also noticed that the individual(s) who actually set the pricing model is not mentioned. Defamation toward employees who had little to no involvement looks like mere tabloid journalism.
Posted by Julie J | Thursday, February 23 2012 at 11:05AM ET
Really? It's not their fault that they're acting unethically and exploiting borrowers.... it's the regulator's fault for not stopping them? In other words, companies are justified in hosing consumers if the law doesn't proscribe the practice? As the first commenter notes, that attitude is precisely why the public distrusts large banks. (The same institutions lobbying against more regulation of their activities.)
Posted by david529 | Thursday, February 23 2012 at 11:41AM ET
On Tom and Julie's points -- Whether you believe that there's a problem with force-placed insurance or not, I'd argue that the plaintiffs' success in court may raise some doubt as to whether laws and regulations actually do allow the alleged practices. If the plaintiffs attorneys in the Florida case and others like it couldn't make a case that the alleged conduct is illegal under existing law, they would already have been thrown out of court.

As for the issue of the name of QBE's actuary who stated that she was not using actuarial methods, I'm having a hard time understanding why citing what she said in a deposition as defamation or a smear attempt. Generally, unless there's an issue of confidentiality involved, I name the people I write about and talk to. In this case, describing Ms. Delach's role is essential to understanding how QBE ran its force-placed business. Keep in mind that Ms. Delach is the person that QBE chose to answer questions about how it sets its rates -- I'd love to know who actually made the decision, too. -Jeff Horwitz, Risk Editor (and author in this instance.)
Posted by jhorwitz24 | Thursday, February 23 2012 at 12:28PM ET
Add Your Comments:
Not Registered?
You must be registered to post a comment. Click here to register.
Already registered? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.
TWITTER
FACEBOOK
LINKEDIN
Already a subscriber? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.