(BREACH OF CONTRACT)   (BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING)     (VIOLATION OF RESPA)   13.   Scotiabank issues and services residential home mortgages on St. Croix,  St. Thomas and St. John.   14.  Scotiabank and its borrowers enter into a standard mortgage agreement  prepared by Scotiabank.  All of the borrowers’ agreements contain substantially the  same terms and conditions.  A copy of Scotiabank’s standard mortgage agreement is  attached asExhibit 1.   15.  Scotiabank’s mortgage agreement requires the borrower to maintain  hazard insurance on the property securing the mortgage.     16.  Under Scotiabank’s standard mortgage agreement, if a borrower’s  insurance policy lapses, Scotiabank has the right to “force-place” new coverage on the  property and then charge the borrower for the cost of coverage.  Scotiabank does not  actually purchase forced-placed insurance for the borrower.  Rather, Scotiabank has a  master policy already in place and adds the borrower’s property to the master policy.    Scotiabank is the named insured under the master policy.     18.  Scotiabank’s standard mortgage agreement requires the borrower to give  Scotiabank notice when his or her property is damaged. The agreement provides that  any insurance proceeds will be used to repair the property if the repairs do not  compromise Scotiabank’s interest in the property.  If the proceeds are not used to make   repairs, they must be used to reduce the borrower’s loan balance.    19.  After Hurricanes Irma and Maria, Scotiabank’s borrowers with force- placed insurance asked Scotiabank to submit claims to its insurer to pay for the repairs  to their homes.   20.  Scotiabank has refused to file the force-placed claims.  Plaintiffs are  informed and believe that Scotiabank has implemented a company-policy and practice  of refusing to file force-placed claims.   32.   Plaintiffs bring this action against Scotiabank pursuant to Rule 23 of the  Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of themselves and the following class:  All persons with residential home mortgage loans owned or serviced by  Scotiabank on property in the U.S. Virgin Islands who were charged by Scotiabank for  force-placed hazard insurance in effect in September 2017 and who submitted to  Scotiabank claims for hurricane damage to their home caused by Hurricanes Irma or  Maria.     33.   Plaintiffs reserve the right to modify or amend the definitions of the  proposed classes before the court determines whether certification is appropriate.   34.   Scotiabank subjected Plaintiffs and the Class members to the same unfair,  unlawful, and deceptive practices and harmed them in the same manner.     A.  Numerosity    36.   There are questions of law and fact that are common to Plaintiffs’ and  Class members’ claims.  These common questions predominate over any questions that  go particularly to any individual member of the Class.  Among such common questions  of law and fact are the following:  a.  Whether Scotiabank has a reinsurance or other financial obligation  with respect to the payment of force-placed claims;  b.  Whether Scotiabank’s policy and practice of refusing to file claims  on behalf of borrowers charged for force-placed insurance violates its standard  mortgage agreement.  c.   Whether Scotiabank violated RESPA by charging plaintiffs and  Class members for force-placed insurance that does not provide coverage for  their properties.  d.   Whether Scotiabank breached the implied covenant of good faith  and fair dealing by failing to file Plaintiffs’ and the Class Members’ claims for  damage to their homes.  C.  Typicality    38.   Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the Classes they seek to  represent and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of those classes.  Plaintiffs  are committed to the vigorous prosecution of this action and have retained competent  counsel, experienced in litigation of this nature, to represent them.  There is no hostility  between Plaintiffs and the unnamed Class members.  Plaintiffs anticipate no difficulty in  the management of this litigation as a class action.   39.   To prosecute this case, Plaintiffs have chosen the undersigned law firm,  which is experienced  in class action litigation and has the financial and legal resources  to litigate this case.  E.  Requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)   40.   The questions of law or fact common to Plaintiffs’ and each Class  member’s claims predominate over any questions of law or fact affecting only individual  members of the class.  All claims by Plaintiffs and the unnamed Class members are  based on Scotiabank’s blanket policy and practice of refusing to process or adjust force- placed claims and on Scotiabank’s unnecessary charges for a master insurance policy  that allegedly does not even cover its own interest in its collateral.   41.   Common issues predominate where, as here, liability can be determined  on a class-wide basis, even when there will be some individualized damage  determinations.  F.  Superiority   44.   Prosecuting separate actions by individual Class members would create a  risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual class members  that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the class.   45.   Defendants have acted or failed to act in a manner generally applicable to  the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding  declaratory relief with respect to the Class as a whole.  46.  Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1-44, above.   47.  At all relevant times, Scotiabank acted as the servicer of plaintiffs’ and the  Class members’ loans.    48.  RESPA, 12 U.S.C. § 2605(m), provides that all charges related to force- placed insurance imposed on the borrower by or through the servicer shall be bona fide  and reasonable.   50.  As a result of Scotiabank’s violation of RESPA, plaintiffs and the Class  have suffered actual and statutory damages in the $2,000 for each class member.    51.  Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1-50, above.   52.  Scotiabank has an obligation under the mortgage agreement to file claims  made by borrowers who have been charged with force-placed insurance. The agreement   provides that the borrower must notify Scotiabank of property damage and that  Scotiabank will use the proceeds of  the insurance to repair the property or to reduce   borrower’s loan balance.   53.  Scotiabank has breached the mortgage agreement by implementing a  policy of refusing to file plaintiffs’ claims with its force-placed insurer.    54.  As a direct result of Scotiabank’s breach, plaintiffs and the Class have  suffered damages, including the cost of repairs to their homes.   60.  Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1-59, above.   61.  Scotiabank’s mortgage agreement includes an implied covenant of good  faith and fair dealing.  Scotiabank is required to perform its contractual obligations in  good faith to refrain from interfering with plaintiffs’ rights under the agreement.   63.  As a result of Scotiabank’s breach of the implied covenant of good faith  and fair dealing, plaintiffs and the Class have suffered damages, including the costs of  repairs to their homes.   WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all Class members  similarly situated, seek a judgment in their favor awarding actual damages as well as  attorney’s fees and costs.  DATED:  February 14, 2018  By:  Respectfully submitted,  