TribLIVE

| Business


 
Larger text Larger text Smaller text Smaller text | Order Photo Reprints

Government may sue mortgage servicers over inflated 'force-placed insurance' fees

By The Associated Press
Wednesday, June 25, 2014, 7:48 p.m.
 

WASHINGTON — The government is considering suing banks and other mortgage servicers over alleged insurance kickbacks that may have cost government-controlled mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac hundreds of millions, according to an internal federal report.

The agency responsible for guarding the mortgage giants' finances told its inspector general's office that it will decide over the next year whether to sue.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which have been under the agency's conservatorship since 2008, lost an estimated $168 million from the fees in 2012 alone, according to the report.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency did not accept that figure. But the agency said in response to the report that it “does not object” to the recommendation that it consider suing.

The FHFA barred banks and other mortgage servicers from collecting payments from insurers on June 1. But the agency does not normally discuss prospective litigation and has not previously indicated that it might consider suing over past misbehavior.

Should the agency decide to sue, the cases could reopen a controversy over how the biggest banks profited from what is known as “force-placed insurance.”

This high-cost version of property insurance protects the homes of uninsured borrowers. Banks typically buy it when a borrower falls behind on mortgage and insurance payments.

After the 2008 housing bust, force-placed insurance ballooned into a $1 billion-a-year industry.

According to a 2012 investigation by New York's Department of Financial Services and private lawsuits, large banks and insurers colluded to inflate the price of force-placed insurance and split the profits.

Insurers paid banks for referring business. Struggling homeowners and mortgage investors such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bore the cost in the form of higher insurance premiums, often many times the price of normal homeowners insurance.

Because insurance kickbacks are illegal, major banks and insurers allegedly contrived to mask the payments as legitimate business transactions.

The FHFA inspector general's report did not name specific institutions. But some banks, including JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo and Citigroup, set up insurance agencies to accept supposed commissions from the two dominant force-placed insurers, Assurant and QBE.

But as New York and private plaintiff's attorneys separately uncovered, these bank-owned insurance agencies were little more than empty shells.

In one example, JPMorgan's employees stated in court documents that a bank-owned insurance agency did not employ a single insurance agent. In other instances, insurers rewarded banks through generous reinsurance deals or simple, lump-sum multimillion-dollar payments, the state found.

In the wake of New York's investigation, other state probes and private suits, many of the largest mortgage servicers, including JPMorgan, Wells Fargo and Citigroup, renounced commissions in 2012 and 2013.

Those banks and other mortgage servicers that might be subject to such suits declined to comment or did not immediately respond to telephone calls and email messages seeking comment on the threat of litigation.

 

 
 


Show commenting policy

Most-Read Business Headlines

  1. Manufacturing cranks up production pace
  2. Regulators release details of Highmark’s post-UPMC transition plan
  3. More pipelines proposed to carry Marcellus gas to southeast markets
  4. Government approves compromise on Corbett’s alternative Medicaid plan
  5. Highmark denies premiums in federal insurance marketplaces affected by level of competition
  6. EDMC to cut costs, roll out new grant
  7. Visual search  still hampered  by image issues
  8. U-PARC houses companies ranging from innovative to traditional
  9. 2 top technology officers leave UPMC
  10. Ukraine conflict, disappointing earnings reports weigh on stocks
  11. Compelling cases exist for cashing out, staying in as stock market soars
Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.