Simpkins v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al
Filing
171
ORDER denying 100 Motion to Sever; denying 118 Motion to Sever. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 8/28/2013. (kar)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DEBRA SIMPKINS, MARK BIDDISON,
and JAMES COCKES, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., WELLS
FARGO INSURANCE CO., ASSURANT,
INC., STANDARD GUARANTY INSURANCE
CO., and AMERICAN SECURITY
INSURANCE CO.,
Defendants.
No. 12-cv-00768-DRH-PMF
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON, Chief Judge:
I.
Introduction and Background
Now pending before the Court are defendant Well Fargo’s motion to sever
claims (Doc. 100) and its memorandum in support (Doc. 101), and defendants’
Assurant, Inc., Standard Guaranty Insurance Company, and American Security
Insurance Company’s joint motion to sever (Doc. 118) and memorandum in
support (Doc. 119).
Plaintiffs oppose Wells Fargo’s motion (Doc. 127) and
Assurant, Standard Guaranty and American Security’s motion (Doc. 134).
The Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Debra Simpkins, a resident of Belleville, Illinois, claims that when
her homeowners policy was not renewed effective April 30, 2007, Wells Fargo
force-placed a temporary 60-day insurance binder with American Security at an
Page 1 of 11
annual premium of $1,141.00. Simpkins claims the force-placed policy was more
than twice the cost of her previous policy and provided less coverage, protected
only Wells Fargo, and covered only the structure of the home. Although the policy
was not placed until June 7, 2007, it was backdated to April 30, 2007. On July
17, 2007, Simpkins claims Wells Fargo force-placed an additional policy on her
dwelling effective from April 30, 2007 through April 30, 2008 with the same
annual premium of $1,141.00 as the 60 day force-placed policy, and the same
coverage only for the dwelling and protecting only Wells Fargo.
Simpkins
contends that Wells Fargo received a commission or other financial benefit from
Assurant and/or American Security connected to the force-placed policy.
Subsequently, Simpkins obtained her own non-force-placed hazard insurance
policy and on October 18, 2007, Wells Fargo issued a notice of cancellation as to
the previously force-placed coverage through American Security.
Simpkins
subsequently filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy relief on January 8, 2008. At the
time she filed for bankruptcy, Simpkins was unaware of her claims against
defendants.
On May 10, 2010, plaintiff Mark Biddison, a resident of New York,
received a notice of non-renewal of his homeowner’s insurance policy that his
coverage would expire on July 3, 2010. Wells Fargo filed a foreclosure proceeding
against Biddison’s property in September 2010. Subsequently, Wells Fargo forceplaced an insurance policy through American Security on Biddison’s property.
Biddison claims his force-placed policy was backdated to July 3, 2010 and Wells
Page 2 of 11
Fargo added a debit of $4,483.00 to his escrow account to cover the cost of the
coverage.
Biddison claims that the force-placed policy had a premium
significantly higher than that of his previous policy, and provided coverage only to
the structure of the house and protected Wells Fargo only. On July 27, 2011,
Wells Fargo accepted Biddison’s application for a loan modification. When he
received his loan modification settlement statement, Biddison’s outstanding
principal had increased over $30,000.00, including a negative balance from his
escrow account, which included the charges for the force-placed insurance policy.
In June 2012, Biddison obtained his own homeowners policy for $1,356, for
substantially more coverage.
Biddison contends that Wells Fargo received a
financial benefit for force-placing the insurance that is a breach of fiduciary duty
and contrary to the doctrine of good faith and fair dealing.
Plaintiff James Cockes, a resident of Frisco, Texas, had a homeowners
insurance policy in place from July 28, 2010, until July 28, 2011. The policy had
an annual premium of $2,401.42. On or about September 28, 2011, Wells Fargo
sent Cockes a letter stating that its records indicated his policy had lapsed in
September 2011, and that Standard Guaranty had issued temporary coverage for
two months at an annual cost of $7,688.65. The coverage extended only to the
building and structure. Cockes secured his own policy to cover October 15, 2011
to October 15, 2012, with an annual premium of $2,563.00. Cockes alleges that
although he provided proof of this to Wells Fargo, it force-placed a policy from
Security Guaranty backdated more than a year to cover Cockes’ property from
Page 3 of 11
September 2010 to September 2011 and charged his escrow account $7,688.65.
Cockes also alleges that Wells Fargo received a financial benefit from force-placing
the insurance coverage with Security Guaranty.
The Defendants
Defendants are Wells Fargo Bank, which originates and/or services
residential mortgage loans, sometimes doing business as Wells Fargo Home
Mortgage; Wells Fargo Insurance, an affiliate of Wells Fargo Bank and Wells Fargo
Home Mortgage (collectively “Wells Fargo”); Assurant, Inc.; American Security
Insurance Company; Standard Guaranty Insurance Company; and any other
force-place insurance provider subsidiary of Assurant.
The Complaint
This is a putative class action brought by plaintiffs Simpkins, Biddison,
and Cockes, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs filed this case July 6, 2012 and amended their complaint on January
15, 2013.
All of the plaintiffs allege they have residential mortgage loans that
originated with Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, and allege that they were required to
pay for lender-placed or “force-placed” hazard insurance policies provided by
Assurant,
American
Security,
Standard
Guaranty
or
other
force-placed
subsidiaries of Assurant. Additionally, plaintiffs allege Wells Fargo charged them
for backdated policies and that Wells Fargo received a commission for the
significantly higher priced policies providing substantially less coverage.
Page 4 of 11
Plaintiffs alleged six counts in their complaint:
(1) breach of contract
including breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, against
Wells Fargo; (2) unjust enrichment/disgorgement, against all defendants; (3)
breach of fiduciary duty/misappropriation of funds held in trust, against Wells
Fargo; (4) aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty, against Assurant,
Standard Guaranty, and American Security; (5) violations of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Business Act, 815 ILCS 505/1, et seq.,
against all defendants on behalf of the Illinois class; and (6) violations of New
York General Business Law § 349, against all defendants on behalf of the New
York class.
On February 22, 2013, Wells Fargo filed their motion to sever the claims of
Biddison and Cockes. On March 15, 2013, Assurant, Standard Guaranty, and
American Security filed their respective motion to sever Biddison’s and Cockes’
claims. Plaintiffs oppose Wells Fargo’s motion to sever (Doc. 127) and Assurant,
Standard Guaranty and American Security’s motion to sever (Doc. 134). For the
following reasons, the Court DENIES defendants’ motions to sever (Docs. 100
and 118).
II.
Standard
Pursuant to Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
(1) Plaintiffs. Persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if:
(A) they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the
alternative with respect to or arising out of the same
transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions
or
occurrences; and
Page 5 of 11
(B) any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise
in the action.
Rule 20(a)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. “The purpose of Rule 20(a) in permitting joinder in
a single suit of persons who have separate claims, albeit growing out of a single
incident, transaction, or series of events, is to enable economies in litigation.”
Elmore v. Henderson, 227 F.3d 1009, 1012 (7th Cir. 2000).
As to defendants’ motions to sever claims, it is within the district court’s
broad discretion whether to sever a claim under Rule 21.
Express, Inc., 209 F.3d 1008, 1016 (7th Cir. 2000).
Rice v. Sunrise
A Rule 21 severance occurs
when a lawsuit is divided into two or more separate and independent or distinct
causes with judgment entered independently. See 9A CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT &
ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2387 (3rd ed. 2008).
Separate trials of claims originally sued upon together will usually result in the
entry of one judgment. Id. The trials remain under the authority of the original
solitary action. Id.
III.
Analysis
In its motion to sever Biddison’s and Cockes’ claims, Wells Fargo claims
that the two parties are misjoined with Simpkins, and fail to satisfy the required
standards for permissive joinder under Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Further, Wells Fargo argues that plaintiffs’ claims do not arise from
the same transactions or occurrences because they each had separate mortgage
documents, separate defaults on their homeowners insurance, and separate
Page 6 of 11
communications with defendants. Finally, Wells Fargo contends that Biddison’s
and Cockes’ claims have no logical relationship to Simpkins’ claims and the state
of Illinois.
In their motion to sever, Assurant, Standard Guaranty and American
Security also claim that the two parties are misjoined with Simpkins, and fail to
satisfy the required standards for permissive joinder under Rule 20 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Further, these three defendants contend that plaintiffs’
claims arise from different insurance transactions, involving different issuers, on
different properties, in different states, and triggered by different circumstances.
Lastly, these defendants contend that plaintiffs’ claims present uncommon
questions of law and fact, and that misjoinder of the claims presents a substantial
risk of prejudice and confusion by producing a “fictional composite claimant”
before the jury.
Plaintiffs oppose both motions, arguing that the claims of each plaintiff
revolve around a central question of whether the agreements Wells Fargo and
Assurant entered into for the provision of force-placed insurance are genuine or
“illicit mechanisms to funnel improper payments and kickbacks to Wells Fargo”
at borrowers’ expense. Further, plaintiffs argue that they bring identical claims
against identical defendants involving a common scheme.
First, defendants argue that the parties are misjoined under Rule 20(a)(1)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because plaintiffs’ claims do not arise from
the same transaction or occurrence, but from different transactions occurring at
Page 7 of 11
different times in different states. Further, defendants argue that plaintiffs’ claims
do not raise a common question of fact or law, in that each plaintiff’s claim will
require “an individualized evaluation.”
Plaintiffs dispute this argument
contending that common issues of fact and law predominate and are central to
the resolution of the case.
The Seventh Circuit accords wide discretion to a district court’s decision
concerning the joinder of parties. Chavez v. Illinois State Police, 251 F.3d 612,
632 (7th Cir. 2001). This discretion allows a trial court to consider, in addition
to the requirements of Rule 20, “other relevant factors in a case in order to
determine whether the permissive joinder of a party will comport with the
principles of fundamental fairness.”
Id. (internal quotations and citations
omitted).
In this case, the Court notes that several common issues of fact prevail: (1)
whether defendants had agreements among themselves that Wells Fargo would
refer force-placed insurance only to specific insurers in exchange for commissions
paid back to them from the insurers; (2) whether Wells Fargo actually received
payments in any form from the insurers in exchange for placing insurance with
the insurers; (3) whether Wells Fargo received other financial benefits from the
force-placed insurance providers such as insurance monitoring, tracking, and
processing services; (4) whether Wells Fargo had a policy of improperly
backdating insurance policies: (5) whether Wells Fargo force-placed unnecessary
or duplicative insurance policies; (6) whether Wells Fargo and the insurers
Page 8 of 11
provided force-placed insurance policies whose cost exceeded the value of the
insurance provided to the homeowners; and (7) whether defendants’ conduct
comprised an unconscionable business practice.
Additionally, there are several common issues of law: (1) whether Wells
Fargo breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing with respect to
plaintiffs’ mortgages; (2) whether all the defendants were unjustly enriched by the
alleged agreements to force-place insurance with specific insurers; (3) whether the
alleged agreements between the defendants constituted deceptive acts or
practices; (4) whether Wells Fargo breached its fiduciary duty to plaintiffs; (5)
whether the insurers induced or participated in Wells Fargo’s breach of fiduciary
duties; (6) whether defendant are liable to plaintiffs for damages, and if so what
measure; and (7) whether plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory, injunctive, or other
equitable relief.
As to Assurant, Standard Guaranty, and American Security’s assertion that
joinder of the claims would result in prejudice to them since plaintiffs could
present a “fictional composite” claimant before the jury that would be “much
stronger than plaintiffs’ individual actions would be,” the defendants fail to offer
any evidence of this claim. Instead, they rely on a Fourth Circuit case that is
neither instructive nor analogous. Broussard v. Meineke Discount Muffler Shops,
Inc. was a case involving ten franchisees suing the franchisor over purported
advertising commission and strategy disputes. 155 F.3d 331 (4th Cir. 1998). In
Broussard, the court stated that the plaintiffs portrayed the class as a “large,
Page 9 of 11
unified group that suffered a uniform collective injury.” Id. at 345. In reality, the
franchisees were bound by very different contracts, depending on when each had
purchased the franchise. Id. at 346. Therefore, the Court does not find this case
instructive here.
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that common issues of fact and law
weigh against severing Biddison’s and Cockes’ claims from Simpkins’ claims.
“Multiple plaintiffs are free to join their claims in a single suit when “any question
of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action.’”
Lee v. Cook
County, Ill., 635 F.3d 969, 971 (7th Cir. 2011) (emphasis in original, internal
citations omitted).
Rule 21 generally applies when the claims asserted by joined parties do not
arise out of the same transaction, occurrence or series of transactions or
occurrences.
See 7 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1683 (3rd ed. 2008). Here, the alleged claims all
arise from the same series of occurrences: each plaintiff had a mortgage through
Wells Fargo; each plaintiff’s homeowners policy lapsed; each plaintiff had a
substantially higher priced force-placed insurance policy put in place by Wells
Fargo and paid from his or her escrow funds. Thus, the Court finds that severing
the claims is not appropriate under Rule 21. Accordingly, the Court DENIES
defendants’ motions to sever (Docs. 100 and 118).
Page 10 of 11
IV.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Wells Fargo’s motion to sever
the claims of Biddison and Cockes (Doc. 100), and Assurant, Standard Guaranty,
and American Security’s motion to sever the claims of Biddison and Cockes (Doc.
118).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 28th day of August, 2013.
Digitally signed
by David R.
Herndon
Date: 2013.08.28
16:13:14 -05'00'
Chief Judge
United States District Court
Page 11 of 11
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?