S.D. Ala. · No. 1:26-cv-00277
Full docket on CourtListener ↗
No federal docket timeline hydrated for this case yet (state-court settlements have no RECAP docket).
| Matter | Type | Practice area | Court | Date | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Newrez LLCsource ↗ filed by Riemer Law, LLC · Judge Jeffrey Uhlman Beaverstock · No. 1:26-cv-00277 · 28:1331 Fed. Question · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $30M–$68M ▾Comparables are split: Gunnar Optiks survived pleading-stage dismissal on similar data-collection theory, while Integris and LabCorp show privacy/state-law claims often stall or get narrowed on technical grounds. The class definition here (force-placed insurance overcharges) is a poor fit for 'Privacy & Wiretap' comparables, adding uncertainty. Comparable settlements $30M–$68M median $59.50M · n=10 Google Assistant $68M · Google $68M · Flo, Google, and F $59.50M Per member (realized): ~$30 median · $29–$30 (n=2) Comparable verdict: Google LLC $425.70M · Google LLC $425M Class (from complaint): All others similarly situated who had property insurance policies and were charged by Shellpoint for forced-placed insurance while maintaining active coverage. Key precedent: Doe v. Bayhealth Medical Ctr. — confidentiality claim against provider for third-party data sharing survived, showing courts allow claims past MTD when a duty/relationship is pled. Main risk: Dismissal on threshold grounds (standing, statutory fit) as in Integris and LabCorp, since the actual claim (insurance overcharge) may not map onto wiretap/privacy statutes. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $145K–$7.50M Theory label (privacy/wiretap) does not match the class definition (insurance overcharge); estimates are speculative and comparables may not directly apply. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | S.D. Ala. | 2026-07-24 | $30M–$68M comparable settlements |