Nichols Kaster, PLLP Files Class Action Against Bank of America for Allegedly Misrepresenting that Flood Insurance Was Required for Borrowers’ Housing Cooperative Units

Share Article

The lawsuit alleges that Bank of America then force-placed flood insurance coverage on the Lemmers’ cooperative unit even though no flood insurance was required in the first place, and accepted a commission for purchasing this unnecessary insurance at the Lemmers’ expense.

Nichols Kaster, PLLP
Not only did Bank of America illegally buy the insurance, it took a commission for doing so.

On April 20, 2012, Plaintiffs Pamela and Mark Lemmer filed a class action lawsuit against Bank of America, N.A. in United States District Court in the Western District of North Carolina.

According to the Complaint, Bank of America falsely represented to the Lemmers that flood insurance was required for their cooperative unit by their mortgage and/or federal law, even though their mortgage agreement does not contain a flood insurance requirement and federal law does not require flood insurance for cooperative units. The lawsuit alleges that Bank of America then force-placed flood insurance coverage on the Lemmers’ cooperative unit even though no flood insurance was required in the first place, and accepted a commission for purchasing this unnecessary insurance at the Lemmers’ expense. “Not only did Bank of America illegally buy the insurance, it took a commission for doing so,” said Plaintiffs’ attorney Kai Richter.

In their class action Complaint, the Lemmers seek relief on behalf of themselves and other housing cooperative borrowers across the country who have been similarly affected by Bank of America’s alleged conduct. Based on this alleged conduct, Plaintiffs’ Complaint asserts claims against Bank of America for breach of contract/breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and fraud.

“In today’s economic environment, many homeowners are struggling to make their mortgage payments, and it is wrong for Bank of America to add to their burden by demanding wholly unnecessary and unauthorized flood insurance that is not required by borrowers’ mortgages or federal law.” said Richter. “It is particularly egregious that Bank of America is accepting commissions in connection with force-placed coverage.” continued Richter.

The case is entitled Lemmer et al v. Bank of America N.A., No. 3:12-cv-000242-MOC-DSC (W.D.N.C.). Plaintiffs are represented by the law firms of Nichols Kaster, PLLP of Minneapolis, Minnesota and Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP of Boston, Massachusetts. The firm of Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP of Raleigh, North Carolina also represents the Plaintiffs. Additional information can be located at the firms’ websites - http://www.nka.com or http://www.shulaw.com – or may be obtained by calling Nichols Kaster, PLLP toll free at (877) 448-0492 or Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP at (800) 287-8119.

Share article on social media or email:

View article via:

Pdf Print

Contact Author

Kai Richter
Visit website