A Consumer Protection and Employment Law Firm Serving California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.

Watch out for this mortgage servicer practice: Force-placed insurance policies

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok
For years, mortgage servicers have been working hard to maintain their bottom lines at the expense of unsuspecting homeowners. One of the unethical practices that has come to light in the last few years affects homeowners who experience a lapse in their homeowners’ insurance coverage. Mortgage servicers are forcing these homeowners into expensive insurance policies that not only support their own bottom line, but can also give them kickbacks from the insurance industry (the California Insurance Commissioner has raised concerns about the lack of arm’s length transactions between lenders and insurers). This practice has four names: force-placed, lender-placed, credit-placed and collateral protection insurance. The intension is to protect the lender’s financial interests should something happen to the property. We have seen lenders put these insurance policies into place when a property owner’s homeowner’s insurance has lapsed, is cancelled or is considered insufficient to protect the property. The difference between force-placed insurance and typical homeowner’s insurance Compared to typical homeowner’s insurance policies on the market, force-placed insurance policies typically:
  • Have much higher rates
  • Do not protect your personal items from loss
  • Do not cover owner liability
  • May provide financial incentives to lenders
  • Are difficult to remove
  • Carry significant penalties
Perhaps most importantly, homeowner’s insurance is intended to protect the homeowner’s interest in their property at an affordable rate. These policies simply do not do that. Protecting yourself from force-placed insurance policies If the mortgage industry has forced you into collateral protection insurance, you need to act quickly. If you do not have an active homeowner’s insurance policy, purchase one as soon as possible. Give your servicer detailed proof of your insurance and request that they cancel the force-placed insurance policy immediately. To protect yourself, make payments on the force-placed insurance, even if you believe your lender was wrong to initiate it. Lenders have acted brashly to put these policies into place and have been known to misstep. Some have even failed to make timely payments from escrow accounts, causing homeowners to lose their insurance and then forcing them into an insurance policy that supports the lender’s bottom line. The practice itself is questionable. If you have been forced into an improperly inflated homeowner’s insurance policy, call an attorney to discuss your options. There may be grounds for a class-action lawsuit.

Quick Navigation

Free Consultation

Undisclosed
Settlement

TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.

More Details
$750,000
Settlement

Common fund class-wide TCPA settlement against home healthcare provider. Final approval granted.

More Details
$27.6M
Settlement

TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.

More Details
$5.2M
Settlement

/

Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.

More Details
$390,000
Settlement

TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.

More Details
$1,500,000
Settlement

/

TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.

More Details
$6,500,000
Settlement

/

Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.

More Details
$13,000,000
Settlement

/

$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.

More Details
$34,000,000
Settlement

/

One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.

More Details
$150,000,000
Settlement

/

Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.

More Details
$100,000,000
Settlement

/ /

Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.

More Details

Office Locations

Copyright 2025 Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. All Rights Reserved.