Law Could Force Lenders to Force-Place More Insurance Policies

Rebecca Walzak

Mortgage lenders and servicers will have to be more careful than ever about force-placing insurance this year.

A 2012 law designed to stabilize the National Flood Insurance Program's finances could have the unintended consequence of dramatically increasing the price of coverage for borrowers in flood zones. This in turn could result in more borrowers failing to pay or renew flood coverage, requiring lenders to force-place coverage, says Tom Elder, the program manager for financial institutions at the wholesale insurance brokerage All Risks.

A jump in lender-paid policies would come at an inopportune time for the industry, which faces new regulatory requirements for such insurance, underscoring the need to educate borrowers why it is necessary.

In recent years regulators cracked down on improper fees paid to banks for lender-placed insurance hazard insurance referrals. The fees raised questions about whether mortgage companies got the best deal they could when they force-placed.

Hence, lender-placed insurance has acquired a stigma akin to subprime mortgage lending. Many consumers may have a hard time understanding why it is used at all. But they need to understand that unlike subprime, lender-placed coverage is not something companies can simply drop. Regulatory and risk management requirements compel them to use it.

Mortgage companies "are to some extent are caught between a rock and a hard place," says Rebecca Walzak, president and CEO of Walzak Consulting in Deerfield Beach, Fla. They have to balance the need to make sure there is not a gap in coverage with the possibility that force-placing insurance will draw regulatory scrutiny, she says.

"They are responsible for ensuring that the property is insured, so that if the property is damaged there is the ability to recoup. If you are getting cancellation notices [for a borrower-paid policy], you have to force-place," Walzak says.

The NFIP is under financial stress due to an unexpectedly high number of claims from natural disasters in recent years. Biggert-Waters has sought to cover the costs by raising rates, potentially over time. It shrinks federal subsidies on loans in flood zones, implementing 25% annual increases on subsidized properties until market rates are reached, according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. About 20% of NFIP policies receive subsidies, FEMA data show.

Since the law was passed two years ago, legislators have become concerned that the effect of the increases is too severe and introduced legislation to mitigate Biggert-Waters' effect. Meanwhile, insurers have begun to warn of increases in some consumer flood zone insurance rates where private insurers fail to offer alternatives to NFIP coverage.

Borrowers need to understand that lenders can't operate without the coverage. They are legally responsible for covering flood insurance risk when the borrower fails to do so, and banks would be exposed to high risks that would severely constrain lending if they tried to manage their inventory of foreclosed properties without lender-placed hazard insurance.

In other words, consumers need to know that keeping up with these payments is part of what they agree to when they get a loan. They also need to understand why lenders have to pay more to manage hazard-insurance risk than borrowers do in the lender-placed situation.

The difference in lender- and consumer- placed costs on the hazard insurance side can be substantial. Insurance pricing varies widely depending on the individual circumstance of the property and the region it is in. But in a normal market, lender-placed hazard insurance can be two to four times the cost of borrower-placed insurance, says Elder, who is also the manager of All Risks' REO program.

Consumers might well wonder why lenders and insurers, who generally have more financial resources and economies of scale than most borrowers, may charge more for force-placed hazard policies than they would pay if they got individual policies on their own. The cost difference may seem especially unfair when it comes to hazard insurance on loans in foreclosure, as these, by definition, generally involve borrower distress.

Borrowers need to understand that the answer lies in the fact that mortgage companies can't afford to cover the risk themselves, Walzak says, and that the risk grows when the insured party has more limited access to the collateral.

Homeowners have access and control over their property; lenders, not so much, according to Elder. Because insurer data show that this lack of control results in a higher level of property damage risk, insurers generally charge a lender more than they do a borrower, he says.

"Having care, custody and control of the property is going to be determining factor as to whether the rate is going to be higher or not," says Elder.

The backlog of properties seized during the downturn has decreased over time. But because of long foreclosure timelines in some areas and the degree of the risk, involved the need for the insurance remains significant, he says.

Borrowers need to understand that the risk to the collateral is so integral to their loans' value to lenders that if the risk is not covered, "they will not lend money," he says.

While lender-placed insurance premiums may be as challenging as any other payment to collect from a distressed borrower, borrowers need to understand they can't be written off.

"If the borrower has the chance to work through this, you still have to have it," Walzak says, noting that servicers may use tools like loan modifications and forbearance to help borrowers with the payments.

Borrowers should also know that if they stop paying for flood coverage based on vagaries in flood zone maps, such as a property that straddles a flood zone line, they are still responsible for the payments during the review process and may face LPI charges as a result, she says.

Costs are important to explain not only because of the disparity between consumer and forced-placed hazard insurance prices, but because they are a source of lender-placed coverage's stigma.

Next in Compliance & Regulation ►
More in Compliance & Regulation See All »
Comments (1)
What "borrowers need to understand" is: Biggert-Waters is a tool to gather more-and-more propeteries into the "design" of REO-to-Rental Program The Financial Industrry, Federal Reserve, FHFA, Fannie and Freddie needed a method to gather up "geographically proximate properties," in order to sell in "enough bulk" to Wall Street bulk REO-to-Rental investor trusts. "Voila! Biggert-Waters to the rescue!" The FEMA flood zone remapping, which is currently being conducted, will result in including more-and-more properties (residential and commercial) into flood zones, Moreover, the ever increasing Draconian flood insurance rates over the next few years will force more-and-more property owners into mortgage default, foreclosure, and bankrutpcy. Bulk REO-to-Rental problem solved...Biggert-Waters will agressively leverage all the "geographically proximate properties" desired by the Financial Industry, Federal Reserve, FHFA, Fannie and Freddie. Wake up America, we are being "intentionally" moved away from an Ownership Society and towards a Rentership Society...and Biggert-Waters is just one more method used to accomplish one of the most massive "American land-grabs" of all time.
Posted by Ann P | Saturday, October 11 2014 at 1:23AM ET
Add Your Comments:
Not Registered?
You must be registered to post a comment. Click here to register.
Already registered? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.