In this putative class action, plaintiffs alleged unlawful practices related to mortgage insurance practices, including a violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (“RESPA”). This case was stayed pending ultimate resolution of a factually-similar case, Cunningham v. MT&T, on appeal in the Third Circuit. In both cases, the plaintiffs purchased primary mortgage insurance (“PMI”) from specific insurers, which in turn purchased reinsurance from their respective mortgagees’ captive reinsurance subsidiaries. Plaintiffs in both suits alleged that this scheme (between the mortgagee and the PMI insurer) violated RESPA’s anti-kickback and anti-fee splitting provisions between the mortgagee and the PMI insurer.
As we previously reported here, in 2016, the Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendants in Cunningham, upholding its finding that plaintiffs’ claims were time-barred and that plaintiffs could not equitably toll the limitations period because they had not exercised reasonable diligence in investigating any potential RESPA claims within the statute of limitations.
The District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, like the Third Circuit in Cunningham, found significant that the homeowners were made aware of the captive reinsurance program through disclosures at the time of closing and did not elect to opt out, did not ask questions of the challenged scheme at or prior to closing, and did not investigate their mortgage until they were solicited by their current counsel. Moreover, the Court rejected the plaintiffs’ attempts to differentiate their case from Cunningham, which was decided at the summary judgment phase after limited discovery, and not, as in this case, on a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Court went on to state, “[u]nfortunately for Plaintiffs, there are no answers to be had from discovery because there are no questions to ask. The similarities between this case and Cunningham cannot be overstated… Just like the plaintiffs in Cunningham, Plaintiffs had all the facts at the time of closing to allege their claim under RESPA, but their inaction during the limitations period bars the application of equitable tolling under a theory of fraudulent concealment.” The court therefore found the above claims to be time-barred, and also precluded the remaining claims under the filed-rate doctrine, which provides that a rate, such as that for PMI, filed with and approved by a governing regulatory agency is unassailable in judicial proceedings brought by ratepayers. The District Court granted defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. Menichino v. Citibank, N.A., Case No. 2:12-cv-00058 (USDC W.D. Pa. Jan. 19, 2018).
This post written by Gail Jankowski.
See our disclaimer.