(888) 355-1735
(toll free)
Consumer Protection
For consumers, signing agreements and entering into contracts is a necessary part of life. We finance many of our purchases, whether it's the home mortgage, a car loan, or the everyday transactions we place on our credit cards. Typically, the agreements we enter into are lengthy and difficult, if not impossible, to understand. However, these agreements are meant not only to obligate us, but also to obligate the companies to whom we give our business. Corporations and financial institutions often fail to live up to their contractual obligations. Worse yet, some may charge customers more than what is permitted by state and federal law, believing that no customer will be willing, or have the resources, to challenge their illegal actions. This is where class actions come in. By bringing suit on behalf of a group of people who have been harmed in the same manner, class actions are one way that consumers can force companies to live up to their side of bargains. A sample of the successful consumer class actions our attorneys have brought include:
If you feel that you may have been harmed because a business, lender or financial institution has not lived up to its contractual or legal obligations, please call us at 412.281.8400 or contact us online and we will evaluate your claim, at no cost to you.
If you are an attorney with a client in this position, please consider partnering with Stember Feinstein Doyle Payne & Cordes. We represent referred matters as we represent our own clients, and respect the fact that referred clients have a history of a positive working relationship with the referring attorney. We would be eager to team with you in prosecuting the case. If you prefer, we also can take the lead or act simply as local counsel. We are flexible on fee arrangements, subject, of course, to applicable rules. Under any scenario, Stember Feinstein Doyle Payne & Cordes will provide your client with superb representation.
Kenty v. Bank One Corporation - Automobile purchasers who financed their purchase through Bank One were required by their contracts to provide proof that they maintained insurance on their vehicles. When a borrower failed to provide proof of insurance, Bank One would obtain "force-placed" insurance for the borrower and charge the borrower's account for the premiums as well as an additional interest charge. Our attorneys brought this case in Ohio (Franklin County) and alleged that Bank One obtained more and different types of insurance (and charged greater premiums) than its contracts authorized. We settled the case for $2.4 million and an agreement from Bank One to stop or change many of its practices.
Bates v. National City Bank - We brought this case in Ohio (Cuyahoga County) on behalf of borrowers who financed their motor vehicle purchases through National City Bank. Our suit alleged that National City imposed concealed insurance charges on the borrowers that were not authorized by their loan agreements. We obtained a settlement of $1.5 million.
Schultz v. University of Pittsburgh - We brought this suit against the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania (Allegheny County) on behalf of season-ticket holders for men's basketball games. In 2005, the University instituted a new system for season-tickets that reassigned seats based on the amount that season-ticket holders donate to the school. The suit alleged that in instituting the new system, Pitt had reneged on a prior guarantee made to season-ticket holders that they could continue to purchase season tickets for the same seats each year provided that they maintained their current annual level of donation. Under the settlement we achieved, affected season-ticket holders are to retain their seats for the next five years by maintaining a specified minimum donation level.
Bates v. National City Bank - We brought this case in Ohio (Cuyahoga County) on behalf of borrowers who financed their motor vehicle purchases through National City Bank. Our suit alleged that National City imposed concealed insurance charges on the borrowers that were not authorized by their loan agreements. We obtained a settlement of $1.5 million.
Schultz v. University of Pittsburgh - We brought this suit against the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania (Allegheny County) on behalf of season-ticket holders for men's basketball games. In 2005, the University instituted a new system for season-tickets that reassigned seats based on the amount that season-ticket holders donate to the school. The suit alleged that in instituting the new system, Pitt had reneged on a prior guarantee made to season-ticket holders that they could continue to purchase season tickets for the same seats each year provided that they maintained their current annual level of donation. Under the settlement we achieved, affected season-ticket holders are to retain their seats for the next five years by maintaining a specified minimum donation level.
If you feel that you may have been harmed because a business, lender or financial institution has not lived up to its contractual or legal obligations, please call us at 412.281.8400 or contact us online and we will evaluate your claim, at no cost to you.
If you are an attorney with a client in this position, please consider partnering with Stember Feinstein Doyle Payne & Cordes. We represent referred matters as we represent our own clients, and respect the fact that referred clients have a history of a positive working relationship with the referring attorney. We would be eager to team with you in prosecuting the case. If you prefer, we also can take the lead or act simply as local counsel. We are flexible on fee arrangements, subject, of course, to applicable rules. Under any scenario, Stember Feinstein Doyle Payne & Cordes will provide your client with superb representation.
