The bank should initiate the normal force placement process as if you were informed of a remapping at this point and you are correct, remuneration to the customer would be based on a business decision and any available recoupment under the vendor's guarantee.
Bank Responsibility for Flood Insurance Coverage
Our secondary mortgage department underwrote a loan for a property and ordered a flood determination/SFHD on the property from our vendor. The SFHD issued noted that the property was located in flood zone X. Based on this, the loan closed without flood coverage in place. Subsequent to closing it was determined that the loan would need to be retained in-house. The bank's credit department ordered another SFHD from a different vendor. This SFHD came back noting that the property was located in zone AE, requiring flood insurance coverage. When contacted the first vendor they reissued a SFHD and updated the flood zone to AE. Obviously, the property must now be insured and any recourse against the first vendor would depend on the terms of the contract with the vendor. The question from management is whether the bank can (with proper notice) now require the borrower to obtain flood insurance or will the bank have the responsibility to provide coverage? I believe that the responsibility lies with the borrower - it would be no different in the particular set of circumstances than if there was a map change placing the property in zone AE where it was previously in zone X. Whether management elects to provide none, all or part of the cost is a business decision. I would agree that the Bank (or original vendor) should pay for the insurance (force place) for the gap period.
First published on 11/24/2019