Consumer complaint received 2026-05-30 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue related to modification, forbearance, short sale, deed-in-lieu, bankruptcy, or foreclosure
Company: Rocket Mortgage, LLC
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
Date : XX/XX/XXXX Rocket Mortgage XXXX XXXX Department RE : Formal Demand for Reconsideration, Investigation, and Compensation for Losses Resulting from Failure of Effective Insurance Notice To Whom It XXXX Concern : I have reviewed Rocket Mortgage 's response concerning the cancellation of my homeowner 's insurance, the subsequent force-placement of insurance, and the losses I sustained as a result of XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. After reviewing the documents provided, I respectfully submit that Rocket Mortgage 's response fails to address the central issue in this matter. The issue is not whether XXXX XXXX generated notices. The issue is whether XXXX XXXX provided notice in a manner reasonably calculated to actually inform me of the cancellation of my homeowner 's insurance so that I could take action to protect my property before a catastrophic loss occurred. Federal law governing force-placed insurance, including RESPA and Regulation X ( 12 C.F.R. 1024.37 ), requires mortgage servicers to provide advance notice before obtaining force-placed insurance. The purpose of those notices is to provide borrowers a meaningful opportunity to obtain replacement coverage and avoid the very type of uninsured losses that occurred here. I never received the notices upon which Rocket Mortgage now relies. I anticipate Rocket Mortgage may argue that compliance was achieved because notices were generated and mailed. However, merely generating notices does not answer the critical question of whether those notices were directed in a manner reasonably calculated to provide actual notice under the circumstances known to the servicer. The documents produced establish that : 1. A substitution of counsel had been filed with the court identifying new counsel and updated contact information. 2. XXXX XXXX was actively involved in litigation concerning this loan through counsel representing the mortgage holder. 3. XXXX XXXX therefore had access to information reflecting the change in representation. 4. Despite this information, the notices relied upon by Rocket Mortgage apparently were directed in a manner that failed to provide actual notice to me. 5. XXXX XXXX subsequently mailed force-placed insurance correspondence directly to my residence on or about XX/XX/XXXX, demonstrating possession of my correct address. Accordingly, the issue is not whether XXXX XXXX knew how to communicate with me. The issue is why the critical notices intended to prevent uninsured losses were not delivered in a manner reasonably calculated to reach me before XXXX XXXX. I further anticipate Rocket Mortgage may contend that I was independently responsible for maintaining insurance coverage. I do not dispute my obligation to maintain insurance. However, that argument ignores the purpose of the federal notice requirements. The notice provisions exist specifically because Congress and regulators recognized that borrowers must be given an opportunity to correct a lapse before force-placed insurance is imposed and before significant harm occurs. Had I received notice that my Florida XXXX policy had been cancelled, I would have immediately obtained replacement coverage. There was no reason for me to intentionally leave a residence of substantial value uninsured during hurricane season in Florida. Instead, I remained unaware of the cancellation until after XXXX XXXX caused catastrophic damage to my home and destroyed a substantial amount of personal property. I also anticipate Rocket Mortgage may assert that force-placed insurance was ultimately obtained and therefore no damages occurred. That position fails to address several significant questions. Documents indicate that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX on or about XX/XX/XXXX regarding a force-placed policy allegedly effective retroactively to XX/XX/XXXX. If coverage truly existed effective XX/XX/XXXX, Rocket Mortgage should explain why my XX/XX/XXXX losses were not covered. If meaningful coverage did not exist for my losses, Rocket Mortgage should explain why premiums were assessed and why I was deprived of the opportunity to obtain replacement coverage before the hurricane. Additionally, the force-placed insurance appears materially different from my XXXX XXXX homeowner 's policy. My prior policy included substantial personal property and loss-of-use coverage. The force-placed insurance appears primarily intended to protect the lender 's interest and does not appear to provide equivalent protection for the borrower. As a result, even if force-placed coverage technically existed, it did not place me in the same position that would have existed had I received notice and obtained replacement homeowner 's insurance. The damages I sustained were foreseeable. The purpose of the federal notice requirements is to prevent borrowers from unknowingly losing insurance protection and suffering uninsured losses. The losses I sustained are precisely the type of harm those regulations were intended to prevent. For these reasons, I request that Rocket Mortgage : 1. Conduct a full executive review of this matter. 2. Provide proof of mailing and the addresses used for every insurance lapse notice. 3. Provide all records reflecting knowledge of the substitution of counsel and updated contact information. 4. Provide a complete escrow and force-placed insurance accounting from XX/XX/XXXX to the present. 5. Identify all insurance coverage that existed on XX/XX/XXXX. 6. Explain why my hurricane losses were not covered if force-placed insurance was allegedly effective XX/XX/XXXX. 7. Explain why force-placed insurance that did not provide equivalent personal property protection was substituted for a policy that did. 8. Enter into discussions concerning compensation for losses directly attributable to the failure of the notice process and the resulting deprivation of my opportunity to obtain replacement insurance coverage. EXHIBIT A TIMELINE OF EVENTS XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX homeowner 's policy allegedly cancelled. Prior to XX/XX/XXXX Substitution of counsel filed with the court identifying new counsel and updated contact information. XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX alleges first insurance lapse notice mailed. XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX alleges second insurance lapse notice mailed. XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX causes catastrophic damage to property and personal belongings. XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX concerning force-placed insurance. XX/XX/XXXX Force-placed insurance correspondence mailed directly to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX property address. Result Borrower suffers substantial uninsured losses and is deprived of the opportunity to obtain replacement insurance before XXXX XXXX. I request a written response addressing each issue raised.

Company public response: Company believes the complaint provided an opportunity to answer consumer's questions
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation