This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Banking
Consumer Fraud Act
Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

Johnathan and Trude Yarger, Donna Insalaco, Jeffrey Gerbitz, Joshua Richman, and a Class of similarly situated persons v. Capital One, N.A., successor by merger to ING Bank, F.S.B., d/b/a ING Direct

Published: Jan. 3, 2015 | Result Date: May 7, 2014 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 1:11-cv-00154-LPS Settlement –  $20,000,000

Facts

Johnathan and Trude Yarger, a married couple, and three additional putative class representatives, filed a class action against ING Bank FSB doing business as ING Direct, now Capital One NA, as successor by merger.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs purchased Orange and Easy Orange adjustable-rate mortgage home loans from ING Direct, which were marketed as having a guaranteed right to renew the fixed-rate of the loan for a fee of $500 or $750, during varying periods of time. ING marketed this loan feature as "Rate Renew." However, ING failed to honor the Rate Renew guarantee, and denied plaintiffs the right to use the Rate Renew guarantee when they attempted to do so. Plaintiffs claimed ING either denied the right to Rate Renew because of newly-added qualification requirements, or offered to Rate Renew, but for the much higher cost of one month's mortgage payment, not the $500 or $750 first guaranteed.

Plaintiffs asserted causes of action for violation of Delaware's Consumer Fraud Act, common law fraud, promissory estoppel, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
ING denied plaintiffs contentions, and asserted various affirmative defenses. Among those defenses, it denied that the plaintiffs had asserted a group that constituted a certifiable class.

Result

The court certified an eleven-state class under Delaware's Consumer Fraud Act. The parties subsequently settled for $20,000,000, with the costs of class notice and settlement administration borne by ING.


#94645

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390