Se Habla Español 615-864-9771

Keller Grover

Protecting Employees and Consumers

Home · Cases · Unlawful Business Practice Cases

Unrefunded Credit Insurance Premium Investigation

We are investigating Credit Insurance Companies on behalf of consumers who have either purchased or leased an automobile or other big ticket item and purchased a Credit Insurance policy. If the policy is paid off early (or the item financed has been repossessed), premiums for the remaining term should be refunded to the policyholder.

If you paid off your loan or lease early and did not receive a refund, you may be entitled to a refund of the unused portion of your credit insurance premiums. If you are interested in learning more, please free to contact us. Also you can submit an information form by clicking here.

What is a Credit Insurance Policy?

Consumers typically buy a credit insurance policy to protect themselves in case they are unable to pay off a specific loan or line of credit due to death, disability, or unemployment. Credit insurance is an insurance policy that pays back some or all of the balance owed on the loan or debt should something happen to the borrower.

There are several types of credit insurance, including: (1) credit life insurance – covers the borrower’s debt in case of his/her death; (2) credit disability insurance – covers the borrower’s debt in case of a disability; and
(3) credit unemployment insurance – covers the borrower’s debt in case of unemployment.

These policies are usually sold through a bank, a store, or auto dealer at the time of a loan transaction. At the time of the transaction, consumers are sold a single premium policy. This means that the entire cost of the insurance policy is bundled into the buyer’s total loan.

If you are interested in learning more, please free to contact us. Also you can submit an information form by clicking here.

Verizon Landline Cramming Case

Keller Grover was co-counsel on the Verizon Landline Third Party Cramming Settlement (Moore et al. v. Verizon Communications Inc. et al., case number 4:09-cv-01823, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California) that made it possible for Verizon landline customers to receive 100% refunds for unauthorized third-party charges. The settlement was approved by United States District Court Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong on August 28, 2013.  The Complaint alleged a practice of charging Verizon’s landline customers for products and services that they did not knowingly authorize and the alleged illegal billing and collection of such charges. Plaintiff alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968; violation of the Telecommunications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq. (the “TCA”); and breach of trust.  Plaintiff also alleged tortious interference with contract; violation of California Public Utilities Code § 2890 (the “CPUC”), violation of California Business and Professions Code sections 17200, et seq., and breach of contract.  The placing of unauthorized charges on customers’ monthly phone bills is commonly known as “cramming.”   Verizon denied any wrongdoing.  Both sides have agreed to settle the lawsuit to avoid the cost, delay, and uncertainty of litigation. The settlement was negotiated under the supervision of retired judge Daniel H. Weinstein.   As part of the Settlement, Verizon has also agreed to require various specific changes to billing practices that are designed to prevent cramming in the future.

Butler v. Apple Inc.

On March 28, 2014, San Francisco class action lawyers Keller Grover LLP and their co-counsel filed a class action complaint against Apple Inc. in California Superior Court alleging that Apple released iPhone operating system (iOS) updates which damaged the ability of many iPhone 4s users to connect to the internet via Wi-Fi and to connect to other devices via Bluetooth.

The complaint alleges that Apple was negligent and violated strict product liability laws, California’s Unfair Competition Law, and California’s False Advertising Law by sending out the iOS updates. Through the class action lawsuit, Keller Grover consumer lawyers seek to recover damages and restitution for each California resident who owns an iPhone 4s device that is no longer covered by warranty and that lost Wi-Fi and/or Bluetooth connectivity as a result of the iOS updates.

A copy of the complaint is available here.

HELP REPRESENT THE CLASS

If you have information about this lawsuit or feel that you may be entitled to damages in connection with this lawsuit, please call us toll free at 866-663-3308 or click here to fill out an information form.

Hilton Worldwide

On January 27, 2012, San Francisco Bay Area class action lawyers Keller Grover filed a class action complaint against Hilton Worldwide, Inc. and Hilton Reservations Worldwide, LLC (collectively “Hilton”) alleging that Hilton violated California’s Invasion of Privacy Act by recording all telephone calls made to the telephone number 1-800-HAMPTON without first providing notice to consumers of the practice and without obtaining consumer consent.

The Invasion of Privacy Act protects the privacy rights of Californians by generally prohibiting the monitoring or recording of telephone conversations without first obtaining the consent of all parties to the conversation.

Through the class action lawsuit, Keller Grover consumer lawyers seek to recover damages of $5000.00 for each California resident whose telephone conversation was recorded by Hilton without his or her consent.

A copy of the complaint can be found here

HELP REPRESENT THE CLASS

If you have information about this lawsuit or feel that you may be entitled to damages in connection with this lawsuit, please call us or fill out an information form.

Nwabueze v. AT&T Inc., Land Line Cramming Case

Keller Grover was co-counsel in this nationwide class action lawsuit filed on April 7, 2009 against AT&T and Pacific Bell Telephone Company (“AT&T”) alleging a practice of intentionally charging consumers for products and services they have not requested or authorized and the illegal billing and collection of such charges.

Plaintiff alleged violation of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968; violation of the Telecommunications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq. (the “TCA”); and breach of trust. Plaintiff also alleged tortious interference with contract; violation of California Public Utilities Code В§ 2890 (the “CPUC”), violation of California Business and Professions Code sections 17200, et seq., and breach of contract.

In November 2013, the parties settled the nationwide class action where AT&T agreed to refund 100 percent of all unauthorized charges for class member filing Full Payment Claims.  AT&T also agreed to certain remedial changes to the way it conducted its business that were designed to prevent cramming in the future..   Class notice was provided to approximately 23 million people identified as as potential class members.

How can we take a stand for you?

Contact us now for a free and confidential case evaluation.