Radian Group Inc. Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements - (Continued) On August 13, 2010, American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. (“AHMSI”) filed a complaint against Radian Guaranty in  the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, on its own behalf and as servicer for certain residential mortgage- backed securities insured by Radian Guaranty under  27 separate bulk primary mortgage insurance policies.  AHMSI contends  that in 2008, it mistakenly sent cancellation notices to Radian Guaranty for certain loans covered under these policies and that  Radian Guaranty wrongfully refused to reinstate coverage for these loans after  AHMSI discovered the error. We believe that  approximately 680 loans, which relate to approximately $20.0 million of RIF, were affected by this error. According to AHMSI,  Radian Guaranty’s refusal to reinstate coverage was in breach of its contractual duties under the policies and in bad faith.  AHMSI is seeking money damages and injunctive relief requiring Radian Guaranty to reinstate full coverage on all loans  insured under the policies. On October 18, 2010, Radian Guaranty filed a motion to dismiss this case, which the court granted  on December 16, 2010, stating that AHMSI failed to establish that it is the real party in interest. On January 5, 201 1, AHMSI  filed an amended complaint that included the trustees of these residential mortgage-backed securities as additional plaintif fs to  the complaint. On May 31, 2011, Radian answered the amended complaint and, subsequently , filed a counterclaim seeking a  declaratory judgment that, among other things, it is not in breach of its contractual duties. Radian also filed, and the court  subsequently dismissed, a third party complaint against Sand Canyon Corporation, the servicer who allegedly made the error  that led to the cancellation of the certificates of insurance, seeking indemnity and/or contribution.  We expect that we will  ultimately resolve this legal matter through a combination of the reinstatement of certain performing loans and payment of an  amount to the plaintiff that is not expected to have a material impact on our liquidity , results of operations or financial  condition. On August 1, 2011, Radian Guaranty filed a lawsuit against Quicken Loans Inc. (“Quicken”) in the U.S. District Court for  the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On September 5, 2012, Radian Guaranty filed an amended complaint. Radian Guaranty’ s  complaint, as amended, seeks a declaratory judgment that it properly rescinded mortgage insurance coverage under Radian  Guaranty’s master insurance policy and delegated underwriting endorsement for approximately  220 home mortgage loans  originated by Quicken based upon deficiencies and improprieties in the underwriting process.  The approximately 220 home  mortgage loans relate to an aggregate RIF of approximately  $13.0 million. On October 25, 2012 ,  Quicken answered Radian  Guaranty’s amended complaint and asserted counterclaims against Radian Guaranty for alleged breach of contract and bad  faith. On November 19, 2012, Radian Guaranty moved to dismiss Quicken’ s counterclaims. Quicken has filed a response to  Radian Guaranty’s motion to dismiss and, on January 11, 2013, Radian Guaranty filed a reply in further support of its motion to  dismiss. This litigation is in the early stages of the proceedings, and therefore, we are unable to estimate a reasonably possible  loss or range of loss in this matter . We have been named as a defendant in a number of putative class action lawsuits alleging, among other things, that our  captive reinsurance agreements violate the Real Estate Settlement Practices  Act of 1974 (“RESPA”). On December 9, 2011, an  action titled Samp v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (the “ Samp  case”), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central  District of California.  The defendants are JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., its affiliates (collectively, “JPMorgan”), and several  mortgage insurers, including Radian Guaranty . The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of borrowers whose loans allegedly  were referred to mortgage insurers by JPMor gan in exchange for reinsurance agreements between the mortgage insurers and  JPMorgan’s captive reinsurer. Plaintiffs assert violations of RESP A. Radian Guaranty and some of the other mortgage insurer  defendants moved to dismiss this lawsuit for lack of standing because they did not insure any of the plaintif fs’ loans. The court  denied that motion on May 7, 2012, and on October 4, 2012, Radian Guaranty filed a new motion to dismiss on a number of  grounds. On December 21, 2012, plaintiffs filed an opposition to that motion. Each of the cases described below are putative class actions (with alleged facts substantially similar to the facts alleged in  the  Samp  case discussed above) in which Radian Guaranty has been named as a defendant: •  On December 30, 2011, a putative class action under RESPA titled White v. PNC Financial Services Group was  filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On September 29, 2012, plaintif fs filed  an amended complaint. In this case, Radian Guaranty has insured the loan of  one of the plaintiffs. On November  26, 2012, Radian Guaranty filed a motion to dismiss the plaintif fs’ claims as barred by the statute of limitations.  Plaintiff has filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. 259