Hall v. Bank of America, N.A. et al

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants conspired to artificially inflate insurance premiums. They did so by improperly "force-placing" new policies for hazard or flood insurance coverage on properties.

1. Final Approval granted.
2. The Court addressed all objections at length in the Final Approval Order, finding them to be without merit.
3. Objectors Hall (through Attorney Bandas), Mayo (through Attorney Dolan), Sanderson and Johnson (through Attorney Fearon), and Trapasso (through Attorney Woods) appealed the Final Approval.
4. All appeals were voluntarily dismissed by the parties.

1. There is no justification for a "claims-made" settlement.
2. Attorneys' fees should not be calculated until claims rate is known.
3. Claim form is confusing and intimidating.

1. Attorneys' fees should be tied to actual recovery of the class.
2. Release is not available to class members.
3. Release is overbroad.
4. Notice is insufficient, since email was not used.
5. Claim form is confusing and intimidating.
6. Requirement to mail opt out requests is overly burdensome.
7. Reversion to the Defendant is improper.

1. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
2. Injunctive relief is illusory.
3. "Clear sailing" provisions are improper.

NOTE: Christopher Bandas filed his appearance in the appeal.

1. Class members do not have sufficient information to make an informed decision.
2. "Claims-made" nature of the settlement is improper.
3. Claim form is unnecessarily burdensome and intrusive.
4. Defendant should have access to the necessary information.
5. Claims process is designed to suppress claims numbers.
6. Deadlines to object and opt out are unduly short.
7. Settlement seeks Final Approval before the claims deadline.
8. Release is overbroad.
9. Class members who have undergone bankruptcy are improperly excluded from the settlement.
10. Injunctive relief is illusory.
11. Attorneys' fees should only be calculated once the actual relief is known.
12. Class representatives do not adequately represent Tennessee class members.

1. Class relief may be illusory, since no common fund is established.
2. "Claims made" nature of the suit is unnecessarily burdensome for class members.
3. Prospective relief provides no benefit to the class.
4. Attorneys' fees are excessive and improperly calculated.

NOTE: The James Objectors withdrew their objection, due to their lack of standing.