BURNS v. FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, LLC
2:19-cv-01647
| E.D. Pa. | May 17, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Michele Burns was fraudulently listed as co-buyer on a Ford truck after her husband forged her signature on Feb. 10, 2017; Ford Motor Credit approved the loan.
- Plaintiff discovered the account in Oct. 2018 and repeatedly disputed it with Ford and the three major CRAs beginning Feb. 2019.
- CRAs sent ACDV notices (codes mainly “001: Not his/hers”) to Ford; Ford assigned different analysts who verified only name/SSN/DOB/address per company policy and responded that accounts were accurate.
- Ford requested an affidavit, police report, and ID from Burns; it acknowledged in a Mar. 13, 2019 letter that the customer was Burns’s husband but did not timely update CRAs.
- Burns’s counsel engaged Ford; Ford reopened and ultimately validated the identity-theft claim on May 8, 2019; CRs updated on May 10, 2019.
- Burns alleges FCRA claims under §1681s-2(b) for negligent and willful failure to reasonably investigate; she claims financial (higher student-loan interest) and emotional/physical harms. Ford moved for summary judgment; the court denied the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Private right of action under §1681s‑2(a) vs §1681s‑2(b) | Burns proceeds under §1681s‑2(b) for furnisher investigation duties | Ford argued §1681s‑2(a) has no private right and tried to frame claims under (a) | Court: Burns properly alleges §1681s‑2(b) claims; private action available under (b) |
| Reasonableness of Ford’s investigation under §1681s‑2(b) | Ford’s analysts used a blanket, cursory policy that ignored dispute about a forged signature; that could be unreasonable | Ford contends it reasonably verified account data per ACDVs and requested identity/theft documentation from Burns | Court: Reasonableness is a factual question for jury; summary judgment denied |
| Causation for lost credit opportunities (student-loan higher interest) | Burns produced evidence she paid higher interest post-notice and that more favorable terms were later available | Ford argues loans were obtained before notice, so damages aren’t caused by its conduct | Court: Causation is disputed fact for jury; summary judgment denied |
| Emotional/punitive damages and willfulness | Burns claims emotional/physical harm and seeks punitive damages for willful misconduct | Ford denies willfulness and disputes emotional damages sufficiency | Court: Burns presented enough evidence to survive summary judgment; willfulness and punitive damages reserved for jury |
Key Cases Cited
- SimmsParris v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., 652 F.3d 355 (3d Cir. 2011) (private suit available under §1681s‑2(b))
- Chiang v. Verizon New England Inc., 595 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2010) (furnisher liability under §1681s‑2(b))
- Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2009) (furnisher duties and private remedies under FCRA)
- Saunders v. Branch Banking & Trust Co. of Va., 526 F.3d 142 (4th Cir. 2008) (furnisher obligations to investigate disputes)
- Cortez v. Trans Union, LLC, 617 F.3d 688 (3d Cir. 2010) (FCRA purpose and reasonableness standard for CRAs)
- Seamans v. Temple Univ., 744 F.3d 853 (3d Cir. 2014) (applying Cortez reasonableness standard to furnishers)
- Van Veen v. Equifax Info. Servs., 844 F. Supp. 2d 599 (E.D. Pa. 2012) (blanket policies and inadequate investigations may preclude summary judgment)
- Boggio v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 696 F.3d 611 (6th Cir. 2012) (furnisher’s cursory procedures can support willfulness finding)
- Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 (2007) (standard for willful violations and punitive damages under FCRA)
- Fuges v. Sw. Fin. Servs., Ltd., 707 F.3d 241 (3d Cir. 2013) (willfulness and punitive damages under the FCRA)