Consumer complaint received 2026-01-18 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — Escrow, taxes, or insurance
Company: FIRST CITIZENS BANCSHARES, INC.
State: ME

Complaint narrative:
In a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, First Citizens Bank- the mortgagee of our property- advised XXXX - for the first time- via letter that an additional structure ( not our main dwelling our residence, which we already carry flood insurance on ) on our property now required flood insurance. We were away the first week of XXXX, and we were first able to retrieve and review this letter on XX/XX/XXXX. The letter was sent by a third party- XXXX and XXXX- that apparently handles insurance information on behalf of XXXX XXXX. We contacted XXXX and XXXX by phone immediately on XX/XX/XXXX and indicated that we didn't believe the structure required flood insurance. They indicated that they were only asked to follow-up on this new requirement, and gave as a phone number to call XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the matter further. 

We contacted XXXX XXXX, although they are extremely challenging to reach the correct party. Eventually, we reached a party that indicated that back in XXXX of XXXX ; XXXX re-classified certain flood zones ; and this additional structure was now considered to be in a flood zone and would now require flood insurance. 

We were then told that since a flood insurance policy has a XXXX waiting period once bound, that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX choice but to place forced flood insurance from their XXXX on our property until the XXXX period is over. Their cost for forced flood insurance is astronomically higher than a typical premium that a consumer can obtain on their own. I replied that I considered this to be unfair as we had just become aware of the requirement for flood insurance to be obtained for this additional structure, but I would contact my insurance agent immediately to obtain the insurance if necessary, after having a chance to both understand and confirm that our additional structure was now in a flood zone after having not been so previously. In reply, I was told that their flood insurance would still be placed on my structure- which we consider to be an unfair process. 

Meanwhile, the next morning - another party or department at XXXX XXXX contacted me to let me know of the new flood insurance requirement and to obtain the information. So now, we had XXXX different parties from XXXX XXXX ( XXXX and XXXX, their mortgage department on the XXXX XXXX, and this group based in XXXX ) requesting the information ; which created confusion and extra time on our part to respond to all XXXX parties ; and which we consider to be harassment by XXXX XXXX. 

Ultimately, in an abundance of caution and good faith on our part, we obtained the supplemental flood insurance ; paid for and bound with an approved XXXX- on Friday, XX/XX/XXXX ; and made XXXX XXXX aware of our purchase of additional flood insurance by emailing them a copy of the declarations page that afternoon. But to no avail - XXXX XXXX  indicated that they are still going to charge us for 30 days of their forced flood insurance until our policy becomes effective after a XXXX waiting period. They indicated that the charge will be assessed on our next mortgage bill. 

XXXX XXXX contention is that the property can't go without flood insurance since it's in a flood zone, but oddly- they indicated that they were aware that the property had been in a flood zone since XX/XX/XXXX ; but suddenly in early XX/XX/XXXX it has to have flood insurance after our first being notified of the requirement, without a reasonable period to review and remedy the situation ( which we did in 3 days )??? We consider this to be a deceptive practice on the part of XXXX XXXX, and we wouldn't be surprised to learn of a financial relationship between XXXX XXXX and the company that provides their forced flood insurance. 

We have been extremely responsive to this new flood insurance requirement once we were properly advised of it and acted both prudently and in abundance of good faith, yet XXXX XXXX seems to be making up their rules as they go.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation