Pare v. KLLM, Inc.,
Not Reported in F.Supp., 1994 WL 382617, E.D.La., Jul 18, 1994
Plaintiff, Michael A. Paré, is a professional truck driver who worked for a trucking company known as KLLM, Inc. from October, 1989 to September, 1992. He has brought this suit under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1681 et. seq., and Louisiana Civil Code article 2315, against two defendants: KLLM, Inc., and D.A.C., a driving record reporting company.
Plaintiff states in his complaint that he was harmed because KLLM furnished inaccurate information about his driving record to D.A.C., and D.A.C. distributed that information in his driving record in a misleading fashion. Plaintiff alleges that the problem began with a driving report produced by D.A.C. that incorrectly listed five (5) as the number of "accidents" he had been involved in while he was employed by KLLM, Inc. [FN1] Plaintiff concedes that when he brought this error to KLLM's attention the number was changed to two (2), but he maintains that, although this is closer to the truth, it is still misleading.
The problem, plaintiff contends, lies in the way DAC defines the word "accident." D.A.C.'s reports state that an "accident" is any incident in which "equipment was involved in an accident or damaged while assigned to the driver regardless of fault." Plaintiff alleges that this definition violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1681e(b), because it does not meet that provision's requirement that credit reporting agencies use "reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy" in their reports. This is because (1) D.A.C.'s definition of an "accident" is contrary to the layman's understanding of the term as it is used in a vehicular setting and (2) "accident" is used by D.A.C. to cover such a wide range of events that it does not appear that D.A.C. has made reasonable attempts to convey maximally accurate information.
Plaintiff argues persuasively in his opposition memorandum that D.A.C. did not meet this standard by showing that D.A.C.'s method of documenting incidents involving damage to the vehicle is misleading. He uses the example of two incidents--one involving an intoxicated truck driver who has a head-on collision and kills a family of four and another involving a sober driver who stops at a restaurant for five minutes and returns to his rig to find a new dent in it. On a D.A.C. report, plaintiff asserts, both incidents would be listed simply as accidents.
Arguably, merely reporting these incidents by including them in a tally of "accidents," even with D.A.C.'s accompanying definition, in a report is ambiguous, incomplete and misleading to the reader. This situation is analogous to a situation that Congress considered when drafting the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which led it to determine that section 1681e(b)'s requirement includes the duty to differentiate between distinguishable items, even within a report entry category. For example, with respect to bankruptcies, the House decided that a credit reporting agency that reported all bankruptcies under a single qualification would violate section 1681e(b), even if its reports clearly stated that it so categorized bankruptcies. See H.R.Rep. No. 1587, 91 Cong., 2d Sess. 29 (1970); Discussed in Koropoulos, 734 F.2d at 43-44. This reasoning has been extended beyond the context of the bankruptcy example the House used to reach an understanding on the meaning of section 1681e(b)' s standard. See, e.g. Koropoulos, 734 at 44 (analogy between categorization of bankruptcies and of loans).
*3 Plaintiff effectively demonstrates that whether D.A.C.'s method of categorizing such incidents and defining the word "accident" as it does are reasonable procedures to ensure maximum accuracy is a genuine issue of material fact that is in controversy. This is especially true in light of the indication of Congressional purpose which is provided in the aforementioned Conference Report. Therefore, it would be improper to grant summary judgment as to plaintiff's federal claim under section 1681.
Plaintiff's state law claim, however, does not present the same situation. D.A.C. correctly states that 15 U.S.C.A. § 1681h(e) forbids plaintiffs from bringing state law claims for defamation, invasion of privacy or negligence against credit reporting services, unless malicious or willful intent to cause injury can be shown. See 15 U.S.C.A. § 1681h(e); see also Parker v. Laurance Eustis Mortgage Co., 615 So.2d 1102, 1103 (La.App. 4 Cir.1993) ( "plaintiff's failure to allege that defendant had acted with malice or willful intent to injure him was a fatal omission.").
Information that should and should not be reported where there is a bankruptcy.
- General Discussions, Forum Registration, and ID Theft and Credit-Related News Stories
- General Discussion
- News Stories on Identity Theft, Personal Data Thefts and Credit Reporting Abuses
- Current Cases
- Lawyer Jokes
- FCRA Statute and Defined Terms Under the FCRA
- FCRA Statute And Amendments: 15 U.S.C. 1681, et. seq.
- What is a Consumer [Credit] Reporting Agency?
- What is a Consumer [Credit] Report?
- Resellers: Who are They? What Do They Do? Are They Liable Under the FCRA?
- Investigative Consumer [Credit] Reports
- Who is a Furnisher?
- How to Get Your Credit Reports and How and Who to Write Your Dispute Letters to
- How To Get Your Credit Reports
- Dispute Letters
- Do You Have To Pay For Your Credit Report?
- FCRA Private Rights of Action and Duties Imposed by the FCRA
- Impermissible Access: 15 U.S.C. 1681b[f] and 1681q
- Front End Duties of the Credit Reporting Agencies: 15 U.S.C. 1681e(b)
- Back End Duties of the CRAs: 1681i[a]:
- Credit Bureau's Duty to Provide Consumer Documentation to Furnisher: 1681i[a][B]
- Duty to Add a Consumer's Dispute Statement in Association with a Specific Account and In Connection with the Credit File/Report: 15 U.S.C. 1681i[c]
- Furnisher FCRA Liability: 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2
- Failing to Mark Contested Accounts As Disputed: 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2[a]
- Obsolescence: When Must the Credit Reportings Come Off of the Credit Report: 15 U.S.C. 1681c
- Duty to Notate Disputed Accounts As Such: 15 U.S.C. 1681c[f]
- Adverse Action Notice Rules: 15 U.S.C. 1681m and ECOA
- Credit Solicitations Are Required to be Clear and Conspicuous: 1681m[d]
- Potential Exposure For Sanctions Due to Filing Bad Faith FCRA Cases: 15 U.S.C. 1681n[c], 28 U.S.C. 1927, and Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 11
- Credit Repair Organizations Act [CROA]
- 1681g: Credit Bureaus' Duties to Provide Reports/Disclosures and to Add 100 Word Statements of the Consumer
- Affiliate Sharing Problems and Violations, 15 U.S.C. 1681s-3
- Common Credit Report Errors and Agency Misconduct
- Credit Errors
- Theft of Identity
- Mixed File Cases
- Re-Aging: Debt Collector's Efforts to Revive Obsolete Reportings
- Reinsertion of Previously Deleted Data: How and When Can It Happen?
- VIP Databases and Offline Status
- Deceased Reporting Cases
- Causation: The Crucial Link Between Breach of a Duty and Damages
- Causation to Damage [Proving Your Damages Are Related to and Caused by the Defendants
- Types of Damages, Remedies, and Awards Under the FCRA and Related State Law Claims
- Damages Under FCRA
- Punitive Damages: 15 U.S.C. 1681n
- Injunctive Relief: FCRA and State Law
- Attorneys' Fees, Litigation Expenses and Costs:
- Declaratory Relief Under the FCRA
- What is Your Potential Case Worth? Other Case Verdicts, etc.
- FCRA Jury and Bench Trial Verdicts
- Other Federal Laws Related to Credit Reporting, Data Privacy, Billing Errors and ID Theft
- FDCPA Statute And Amendments: 15 U.S.C. 1692, et. seq.
- Fair Credit Billing Act, 15 U.S.C. 1666, et. seq.
- Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998, 18 U.S.C. §1028
- Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”) and Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives Program (“HAFA”)
- State Law Claims Related to Credit Reporting, Billing Errors, Privacy Breaches and ID Theft
- Invasion of Privacy: State Law
- Defamation: State Law
- Interference With Prospective Credit: State Law
- Interference With Marital/Family Relations: State Law
- Infliction of Emotional Distress/Mental Anguish: State Law
- Data Breach Claims and Issues
- Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Claims: State Law
- Jurisdiction, Venue, Removal to Federal Court, Remand to State Court, and Other Pre-Trial Jurisdicti
- Removal of FCRA Cases From State Court To Federal Court
- Personal Jurisdiction and Venue in Credit Reporting Cases
- FCRA Litigation Strategies and Procedural Issues and Law
- Settlements, Releases, Prevailing Party Status, and Other Things You Need to Know If You Resolve Your Case Before Judgment
- Offers of Judgment In FCRA Litigation
- Secret Documents, Product Information and Testimony
- Choicepoint Secret Documents:
- Equifax/CSC and Affiliates Secret Documents:
- Experian Secret Documents
- Innovis Secret Documents:
- Trans Union Secret Documents
- Furnisher and Public Records Suppliers Secret Documents
- Respondeat Superior, Vicarious Liability, and Whether Others Are Liable
- Liability For Employee's FCRA Violations? Liability For FCRA Violations by Third Parties?
- FCRA Preemption, Immunity, and Qualified Immunity
- FCRA Preemption: 15 U.S.C. 1681t[b][F] and Related Discussions
- FCRA Qualified Immunity: 15 U.S.C. 1681h[e] and Related Discussions
- States/Govermental Immunity From FCRA Claims?
- Jury Voir Dire, Instructions, Verdict Forms, etc.
- Jury Instructions and Jury Verdict Forms
- Jury Questionnaires, Voir Dire, Jury Selection and Jury Bias
- Credit Card Issues
- Credit Card Liabilities
- Do You Have a Right to Bring Claims and How Long Do You Have?
- Statute Of Limitation: 15 U.S.C. 1681p
- Standing to Sue
- Credit Scores, Adverse Action Codes, and Other Report Codes
- Credit Scores, Adverse Action Codes, Risk Factors, Denial Codes and Other Scores and Codes Supplied by the Credit Reporting Agencies
- The Mechanics of Credit Reporting
- Public Records Reportings [Non-Bankruptcy]
- Bankruptcy Reporting
- Student Loan Credit Reporting
- Metro Tape [I and II]: Standardized Credit Reporting Formats Used by the Credit Industry
- Defenses Asserted by Credit Reporting Defendants
- What Law Applies? Problems Barring Use of the Court and Law
- Arbitration, Forum Selection, Choice of Law, Choice of Venue and Other Adhesionary Clauses
- Conflicts of Laws Issues in FCRA and Related State Law Issues
- Standing and Statutes of Limitations
- Statute Of Limitation: 15 U.S.C. 1681p
- FCRA Legal Forms [Suits, Discovery, etc.]
- Discovery: Interrogatories, Requests For Production of Documents, Requests to Inspect, Requests For Admissions, Deposition Notices, Subpoenas, Deposit
- FCRA Sample Pleadings: Complaints, Motions, Oppositions and Other Standard Lawsuit Filings
- Defenses Frequently Asserted by Defendants to Consumer's Actions
- FCRA Class Actions and Class Issues
- FCRA Class Actions
- Special Evidentiary Issues: What is Evidence?
- Evidentiary Issues in FCRA Cases
- Expert Witnesses, Special Issues and Daubert and Related Challenges
- Appellate Issues, Rules, Law, Etc.
- Defenses Asserted by Industry and Abuse Stories
- Defense Counsel Abuses and War Stories
- Law Outlines: Various Topics
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 3 guests