HUMPHREYS v. BUDGET RENT A CAR SYSTEM, INC.
2:10-cv-01302
| E.D. Pa. | Dec 19, 2017Background
- Humphreys rented a car from Budget in July 2008 in Florida; she declined LDW and agreed Budget could charge the repair cost or the difference between fair market value and sale proceeds if the car was damaged.
- Budget salvaged the damaged car and sold it at auction; the sale occurred August 13, 2008 with salvage value deductions.
- Budget billed Humphreys $11,225.55 for damages, plus loss-of-use and administrative fees, after delays in notifying her of the damage.
- Humphreys claimed delay in notice prevented timely coverage by insurer/credit card, and she disputed the debt; Viking sent a demand letter on April 10, 2009.
- Plaintiff asserted FDCPA claim against Viking; Budget asserted claims including PFCEUA violation, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and a PFCEUA claim against Budget.
- Judge’s rulings on summary judgment govern the remaining counts: Viking’s motion granted in part; Budget’s motion granted in part; PFCEUA claims dismissed against both Viking and Budget; unresolved issues regarding Budget’s loss-of-use calculation remain for trial or further determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Viking violated the FDCPA by the April 10, 2009 letter | Humphreys argues the letter misrepresented the debt and was confusing. | Viking contends the letter complied with §1692(g) and was not confusing to the least sophisticated debtor. | No FDCPA violation; letter complies with §1692(g) and is not misleading. |
| Whether the April 27, 2009 communication to counsel was in connection with debt collection | The form and content could be treated as debt collection activity and misleading. | This communication was not addressed to Humphreys personally and did not involve collection demand. | Not a communication in connection with collection; not actionable under FDCPA. |
| Whether Humphreys can state a PFCEUA claim against Viking | PFCEUA violation due to deceptive practices in debt collection. | PFCEUA does not create a private right of action; UTPCPL must be invoked; reliance and loss required. | Summary judgment for Viking on PFCEUA claim; no justifiable reliance or ascertainable loss shown. |
| Whether Budget’s untimely notice of damages supports a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing | Untimely notice injured insurer coverage and caused damages. | Plaintiff failed to show injury causally linked to untimely notice and insurer denial. | Budget entitled to summary judgment on the untimely notice claim (no injury shown). |
| Whether Budget’s loss-of-use calculation is a reasonable measure of damages or a penalty | Sale-date based loss-of-use is unreasonable; replacement date is appropriate. | Sale-date method is prescribed by the contract; generally reasonable. | Question of fact remains; loss-of-use methodology is potentially unreasonable; cannot grant summary judgment on this point. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jensen v. Pressler & Pressler, LLP, 791 F.3d 413 (3d Cir. 2015) (FDCPA false/misleading statements must be material; least sophisticated debtor standard applied)
- McLaughlin v. Phelan Hallinan & Schmieg, LLP, 756 F.3d 240 (3d Cir. 2014) (communications to consumer may be part of debt collection activity; context matters)
- Simon v. FIA Card Services NA, 639 F. App’x 885 (3d Cir. 2016) (whether communications to debtor’s attorney count under FDCPA; least-sophisticated standard applied when evaluating claims)
- Hall v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, 204 F. Supp. 3d 807 (E.D. Pa. 2016) (UTPCPL framework requiring justifiable reliance and ascertainable loss; private right of action context)
- Benner v. Bank of America, N.A., 917 F. Supp. 2d 338 (E.D. Pa. 2013) (UTPCPL damages and reliance principles; loss requirement)