Consumer Fraud Lawyer

Berger v. Bank of America

Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP has filed a class action alleging breach of mortgage contracts against Bank of America, N.A. and BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P.  The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of all persons for whom Defendants purchased and charged the cost of hazard or flood insurance in excess of the coverage amounts required by the mortgage agreements.  The case is entitled Berger et al v. Bank of America, N.A. et al, C.A. No. 1:10-cv-11583.

The complaint alleges that Defendants have established and enforce a nationwide policy that requires and compels the mortgagors to maintain greater hazard and flood insurance coverage than required by their mortgages.  Defendants enforce their insurance coverage requirement by demanding that the mortgagors obtain the amount of hazard and in some instances, flood insurance coverage “required” by the Defendants.  If the mortgagors fail to comply with the Defendants’ demands, the Defendants purchase hazard or flood insurance coverage so that the total insurance coverage on the real estate will meet the Defendants’ insurance coverage “requirements.”  That is called “force placed insurance” or “lender placed insurance”.  In doing so, the Defendants cause the insurance coverage on the real estate to be greater than required by the mortgage agreements.  The premiums for that additional insurance often costs far more than insurance obtained by the homeowner.  And, the defendants profit when they force place that overpriced insurance.

Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP filed a second, related complaint on February 23, 2011 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  The case is entitled Kolbe v. Bank of America, N.A. et al, C.A. No. 1:11-cv-10312.

If you have had hazard or flood insurance force placed by your mortgage servicer – BAC Home Loans, Bank of America or any other bank or mortgage servicer – we would be interested in discussing this with you.

Aspinall v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc.

Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP is currently representing a certified class of Massachusetts residents and other regular purchasers who bought Marlboro Lights cigarettes in Massachusetts between approximately 1994 and 1998. The consumers challenge the labeling of such cigarettes as "Lights" and delivering "Lowered Tar and Nicotine" as false and misleading, in violation of the Massachusetts consumer protection statute. You can read the Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Class Action Complaint by clicking here, and the Defendants' Answers to the Complaint by clicking here.

The case was originally certified as a class action in October of 2001 and affirmed by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in August of 2004, which is reported at 442 Mass. 381 (2004). The favorable decision of the Supreme Judicial Court in this action has been essential in ensuring the rights of Massachusetts consumers to bring their claims for unfair and deceptive business practices in the form of a class action.

The firm also successfully prevailed against Philip Morris' argument that a consumers' claims under state law were preempted by federal law and the actions of the Federal Trade Commission, before both the Massachusetts Superior Court and the Supreme Judicial Court, which is reported at 453 Mass. 431 (2009). The remaining issues in the case are still being litigated before the Massachusetts Superior Court.

Altria v. Good

In a similar action brought by two other law firms in the federal district court in Maine, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP successfully argued an appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to defeat the same federal preemption argument Philip Morris made in the Massachusetts Aspinall litigation. The decision is reported at 501 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2007). It was later affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States, and the firm was on the brief before the Supreme Court and played a critical role in preparing the case for argument. The decision of the Supreme Court is reported at 128 S.Ct. 1119 (2008). With that appeal concluded, the case returned to the federal district court in Maine and is to be handled by the lawyers who originally filed the case.

Building Products of Canada

Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP is representing consumers who have purchased defective organic roofing shingles from Building Products of Canada, also known as BP of Canada. Consumer class actions have been filed in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York. The organic shingles, despite being marketed and warranted as durable and long-lasting, failed prematurely. The Complaints allege that BP of Canada not only produced, sold and misleadingly marketed a product that they knew or reasonably should have known was defectively designed, but also that BP of Canada has consistently failed to honor its warranties.

GAF Materials Corporation

Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP is counsel for a putative class of consumers of Timberline Ultra shingles, manufactured and sold by Building Materials Corporation of America, d/b/a GAF Materials Corporation (“GAF”). The action has been brought against GAF on the grounds that it marketed its shingles as compliant with American Society for Testing and Materials technical standards for fiberglass shingles when, in fact, the shingles fell short of the performance requirements and they have prematurely failed. An action has been filed in Massachusetts and was recently transferred to the District of South Carolina.

Insurance Arbitration Cases

Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP has filed a consumer class action on behalf of all persons who received arbitration awards against seven insurance companies operating in Massachusetts in connection with underinsured, uninsured and third-party bodily injury motorist claims. The plaintiffs challenge the insurance companies' failure to pay interest from the date of the arbitration awards to the date that the insurance company paid the awards, and seek to recover the unpaid interest. In addition, the action seeks to recover triple damages and attorneys' fees under the Massachusetts' consumer protection statute.  On February 25, 2009, the Superior Court issued a decision on summary judgment in which the Court held that insurance companies have a common law duty to pay post-award interest on arbitration awards from the date of the award to the date of payment.  On March 3, 2010, the Court also ruled, among other things, that the applicable rate of interest on arbitration awards is 12% per annum.

Plaintiffs have reached settlements with five of the seven insurance companies.  Specifically, Plaintiffs have reached settlements with OneBeacon America Insurance Group, Arbella Mutual Insurance Company, Safety Insurance Company, Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Company and Commerce Insurance Company. The Court has approved the settlements with OneBeacon, Arbella, Safety, Metropolitan, and Commerce. As part of the settlements, these insurance companies have agreed to pay post-arbitration award interest to class members at 12% per annum, plus prejudgment interest on that amount.  In addition, the settling companies have agreed to implement policies going forward whereby they will pay post-arbitration award interest at 12% per annum on all arbitration awards going forward except in a few specific situations.

Plaintiffs and their counsel continue vigorously to prosecute this action against Defendants Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and Hanover Insurance Company.

Westside EKG

Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP, along with its co-counsel in Florida, is prosecuting a class action on behalf of medical service providers in the State of Florida against various health maintenance organizations ("HMOs") alleging that the HMOs failed to pay claims of non-participating medical service providers for medical services provided to the HMOs' insureds in a timely fashion, in violation of the prompt pay provisions of Florida's Health Maintenance Organization Act, Fla. Stat. § 641.355 (the "Act").

This case has already been to the Florida Supreme Court, where Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP and its Florida co-counsel prevailed with a seminal ruling by the Florida Supreme Court that the prompt pay provisions under the Act are incorporated into the contracts between the HMOs and their insureds. The Court also ruled that non-participating medical service providers are third-party beneficiaries of those contracts and accordingly they may sue the HMOs for their failure to comply with the prompt pay provisions of the Act. Foundation Health v. Westside EKG, 944 So.2d 188 (Fla. 2006). The case is currently back in the trial court (Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County).

Overdraft Fees Litigation

Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP is counsel in a putative class action case filed in the Central Division of the District of Utah against Zions First National Bank. The case alleges that Zions First National Bank charged and collected excessive overdraft fees in connection with debit card transactions, manipulating the order in which credits and debit card charges were posted to customer accounts so as to maximize the number of overdrafts charged against the accounts, thereby increasing the overdraft fees collected from customers.

Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP is also counsel in two related cases filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Marin, against Westamerica Bank. The cases are class actions filed on behalf of current and former customers of Westamerica Bank; both allege that Westamerica charged excessive overdraft fees in connection with debit card transactions. These excessive fees resulted from Westamerica Bank’s practices of assessing overdraft fees even in cases in which Plaintiffs had positive account balances or were reasonably led to believe that the transactions would not overdraw their accounts, and of manipulating transactions when posting these transactions to the Plaintiffs’ accounts, for example by reordering debit card transactions from highest amount to lowest amount regardless of when the transactions actually occurred.

Gillette M3P Razor Litigation

Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP represents consumers who purchased the M3P razor in a suit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against The Gillette Company. The case alleges that Defendants engaged in deceptive practices by claiming the M3P razor delivered micro-pulses to the shaving cartridge that raised the hair upward and away from the skin, when those claims were allegedly not true. The case has been settled, subject to the approval of the court, for cash and other benefits totaling $7.5 million. The settlement is awaiting court approval.

Wozo Poster Club Litigation

Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP has filed a consumer class action against Wozo, LLC, Tatto, Inc., and Acknowledge, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts for knowingly employing misleading and deceptive online advertising and violating the Electronic Funds Transfer Act. The Complaint alleges that Defendants  advertised “free” posters with a 99-cent shipping fee. However, Defendants failed to adequately disclose that, in signing up for the “free” poster offer, consumers’ credit or debit cards would also be charged $29.99 each month for membership in a “poster club” in which they would receive two arbitrarily chosen posters per month.

Legal Malpractice

Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP is representing a group of lenders in a suit pending in Suffolk County (MA) Superior Court that alleges legal malpractice against the law firm that represented the lenders with respect to a mortgage on commercial real estate.  The complaint alleges that the law firm had undisclosed conflicts of interest and failed to disclose material facts.