re: Flood Insurance Fraud Story-You aren't going to believe this one.

The most important fact has been left out of this whole thread, what zone is Tom in? Before i would comment on which acronym is gonna be up in someone's arse, which it certainly will be by what was on the TIL, I want to validate this farce is actually a true story.

quote:

---

As to your many questions the answer is yes. He paid for a flood policy. That is documented on the HUD and with the required disclosures. In a way that satisfied both Tom and the mortgage company. However there is no flood insurance.

So now that you know that, what would you say happened?

---

I would suggest that the title company paid the insurances as per the lenders requirements. The payments were actually made to an insurance agent, instead of an actual carrier. The agent, accepted the funds but never forwarded those funds to the carrier and in due order the carrier dropped coverage.

That being said, if the agent accepted the funds on behalf of the carrier, I would think that they would be responsible, at least to some degree for the actions of their agent. Their agent received payment, the consumer should be covered. Although it may take a team of Philadelphia lawyers to get to that point.

Not that it will help the consumer, but I think it is likely that the insurance agent may see some slammer time over this.

quote:

---

I would suggest that the title company paid the insurances as per the lenders requirements. The payments were actually made to an insurance agent, instead of an actual carrier. The agent, accepted the funds but never forwarded those funds to the carrier and in due order the carrier dropped coverage.

---

I concur. And to clarify, the mortgage originator and the insurance agent are one and the same, right?

On the one hand, he represents a reputable mortgage company "Generic Mortgage Company" and on the other, he set up an insurance brokerage "sounds like a big name company LLC" where he places his clients. The check is written as required per lenders requirements to his LLC, he cashes the check, no flood insurance is ever placed in force. The money evaporates.

Does that sound right, or am I wrong somewhere? I humbly defer to your superior expertise.

Has any of that been confirmed by your friend?

From what you've described so far, that seems to be the most likely scenario.

No problem for the loan originator unless he did not disclose his relationship with the insurance company, which would likely be a RESPA violation. But, the insurance agent may have some difficult days ahead.

It has been a month since the last post in this thread. Will you post an update when this thing shakes out? Thanks.