A flood policy expired on a loan that had deferred principal due to a COVID Deferral program. The customer didn't renew their policy and force placement of coverage was implemented, notices went out on time and the force placement happened on day 46. The problem came one week prior to the renewal of the force placed policy, when evaluating to renew, it was discovered that the number used to calculate coverage last year was incorrect. The principal used was a much smaller amount which is the one agreed on the COVID deferral, but not the real one. Since the policy is a forced placed policy, and regulation doesn't require a new set of notices, we only send one courtesy letter advising the client of the imminent force placed renewal. My counterparts think that we should restart the letters since we will renew the policy for a higher amount but I don't agree with that assessment. What do you think?
What approach do other lenders take when a property is not in a mandatory purchase flood zone, but "maps-in" during the origination of the loan? In some institutions, we've had a process to verify the flood zone prior to close, but others have allowed loans to close and immediately put the loan into the 45-day flood letter cycle?
I have a question related to long backdating (or just backdating) for force placed insurance. I am not finding a lot of information regarding backdating polices other than the standard 45 days that is required when placing a policy that has lapsed or expired.
Does anyone know if there are current lawsuits concerning backdating a policy to an 'effective date' and charging the customer for that time even if nothing happened to their dwelling? For example, when we charge the customer on the 45th day of a new
policy, but it is back dated to when their policy expired or lapsed, is this seen as a UDAAP issue with consumers? In essence we are charging them for a policy when they did not have a claim, so I am unsure what recommendations I should make regarding backdating polices. And, there are no kickbacks, this is simply a backdating question and premiums for servicing. I hope this makes sense! I am having difficulty finding any litigation and/or trends regarding this. Any feedback is welcomed. I am familiar with the process of 1024.37 however am looking a little deeper into the effective dates of polices placed, hazard or flood. Also cannot find much on Fannie Mae or Freddi Mac.
We are on a loan audit at a client's bank. Loans with collateral located in a flood zone are escrowed to pay the premiums. This bank allowed a policy to expire and didn't pay the premium until 3 days after the expiration of the policy. I know I read somewhere in the new rules within the last 2 years that bank's have the responsibility of paying flood premiums timely, before the expiration of the policy. Did I dream this or is it part of the new rules? If so, where can I find it.
The bank has a mortgage impairment policy that states the lender is covered in the event of a loss due to flood damage in the amount equal to the outstanding loan amount or the limits imposed by the flood regulation, whichever is less. Is this type of coverage sufficient to serve as a "force placement of flood insurance" in the event a borrower allows their flood policy to lapse and they have not responded to the banks request for a new policy? In the regulation it reads we have to force place on behalf of the borrower...the borrower is not covered in this case, only the outstanding loan amount is. I am interested in your thoughts. Also, we do not charge the borrower for any force place coverage in this situation.