J.P. Morgan Chase has agreed to settle for $22.1 million classaction lawsuits involving force-placed flood insurance imposed onhomeowners in California and New York.

The agreement is the tip of the iceberg in a legal andregulatory settlement of accounts by plaintiff's lawyers, courtsand state regulators stemming from the period beginning 2007 untilJuly 2012 when the housing boom turned into a bust and a number ofhomeowners throughout the country were unable to pay theirmortgages.

The most recent settlement of the flood insurance FPI issue isamong a group of FPI cases against J.P. Morgan nationwide. Costs ofhazard FPI constitutes 90% of the total FPI claims nationwide,according to Adam M. Moskowitz, of Kozyak Tropin & Throckmortonin Miami, co-counsel in the main J.P. Morgan Chase hazard insurancecase. Another 5% of the cases involve flood FPI, and a further 5%involve wind FPI, he said. 

The hazard FPI claims are being handled in a federal court inMiami before Judge Frederico Moreno. Lawyers announced in Septembera $300 million settlement between J.P. Morgan, Assurant andplaintiff homeowners for those claims.

Disposition of that case is scheduled for Feb. 14 and involves1.3 million homeowners nationwide.

Wind cases against J.P. Morgan Chase were wrapped up Nov. 22through a final approval hearing. Moreno ordered final approvalthree days later. The settlement fund is $4.75 million, lessattorney's fees/costs/claims administrator cost. 

But while the wind and hazard cases were heard in Florida, themost recently announced settlement in the J.P. Morgan Chase floodcase is pending in federal district court in San Francisco. Thepreliminary approval hearing for the settlement is set for Jan. 17,Moskowitz says.

Most of the FPI flood cases involve loans serviced WashingtonMutual, based in Seattle, which failed in 2009. Chase allegedlytook ownership of a mortgage on a condo owned by the leadplaintiff, Clements, and a year later asked that she provide proofof flood insurance. 

A month later, Clements alleges Chase sent her a letternotifying her that insurance had been placed on her property forwhich she was financially responsible, according to a statementmade by lawyers at Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, when they filedthe lawsuit in May 2012.