Justia Consumer Law Opinion Summaries

The plaintiffs, Shane and Maura Pelissier, insured their automobile through GEICO General Insurance Company. They sought underinsured motorist benefits four and a half years after a motor vehicle accident with an underinsured driver. GEICO moved for summary judgment, citing a policy provision requiring lawsuits for underinsured motorist benefits to be filed within three years of the accident. The trial court denied the motion and transferred three interlocutory appeal questions to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire.The trial court found that the contractual limitations provision was unenforceable because it could require insureds to file suit before a justiciable cause of action exists. It also found that using the date of the accident as the triggering event for the limitations period was contrary to public policy and that there was a material factual dispute regarding the plaintiffs' ability to discover the tortfeasor’s policy limits before the limitations period expired. The trial court denied GEICO’s motion for reconsideration but granted an interlocutory appeal.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed whether the contractual limitations provision violated public policy. The court held that the provision was unenforceable because it could force insureds to file suit before their cause of action for underinsured motorist benefits had accrued, thus restricting their ability to recover damages. The court noted that the provision contravened the public policy underlying New Hampshire’s uninsured motorist statute, RSA 264:15, which aims to place insured persons in the same position as if the offending motorist had adequate liability insurance. The court affirmed the trial court’s decision in part, did not address the second interlocutory question, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Pelissier v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co" on Justia Law

The case involves the People of the State of California, represented by the San Diego City Attorney, who filed a complaint against Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. The complaint alleged that Kaiser violated the unfair competition law (UCL) and false advertising law (FAL) by failing to maintain and update accurate health plan provider directories (PDs) as required by California Health and Safety Code section 1367.27. The People claimed that Kaiser’s inaccuracies in PDs misled consumers and harmed competitors.The Superior Court of San Diego County granted Kaiser’s motion for summary judgment, exercising its discretion to abstain from adjudicating the action. The court reasoned that the legislative framework did not impose an accuracy requirement but rather outlined procedural steps for maintaining PDs. The court concluded that adjudicating the People’s claims would require it to assume regulatory functions and interfere with policy judgments already made by the Legislature and the Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC).The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by applying the doctrine of judicial abstention. The appellate court found that section 1367.27 sets forth clear mandates for PD accuracy, which the trial court could enforce through its ordinary judicial functions. The appellate court held that the People’s enforcement of these statutory requirements would not interfere with the DMHC’s regulatory functions and that the trial court’s abstention was based on a mistaken view of the law. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded the matter with directions to deny Kaiser’s motion for summary judgment. View "P. ex rel. Elliott v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan" on Justia Law

In November 2014, the plaintiff purchased a recreational vehicle (RV) from a dealership, with the defendant bank financing the purchase. The sales contract inaccurately reflected the downpayment as $19,100 in cash instead of $1,000 in cash and $18,100 in trade-in value. The plaintiff later discovered issues with the RV and filed a lawsuit in February 2017, alleging violations of the Automobile Sales Finance Act (ASFA) due to the incorrect downpayment disclosure.The Superior Court of Fresno County reviewed the case and concluded that the four-year statute of limitations for written contracts applied, rather than the one-year statute for statutory penalties. The court granted summary adjudication in favor of the plaintiff against the dealership for violating the ASFA, and the dealership's liability was extended to the bank under the Federal Trade Commission’s holder rule. The court entered judgment requiring the bank to accept the return of the RV and pay the plaintiff $42,263.64.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case and determined that the rescission and restitution remedy under the ASFA is a penalty. The court concluded that the one-year statute of limitations for actions upon a statute for a penalty or forfeiture applied. The court noted that the ASFA imposes strict liability without regard to actual damages or fault, and the legislative history indicated the remedy was intended as a penalty. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Pompey v. Bank of Stockton" on Justia Law

Meghan Young was denied a mortgage loan due to an erroneous credit report prepared by Experian Information Solutions, Inc. The report falsely indicated that foreclosure proceedings had been initiated against her, despite her having paid off her mortgage in full. Following this, Young enrolled in a credit monitoring service called CreditWorks, which is affiliated with Experian. The terms of use for CreditWorks included an arbitration agreement covering disputes related to the service.Young sued Experian in the District of New Jersey for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Experian moved to compel arbitration based on the CreditWorks agreement. The District Court denied the motion without prejudice, allowing for limited discovery on the issue of arbitrability. The court applied the summary judgment standard from Guidotti v. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, L.L.C., as the arbitration agreement was not apparent from the face of the complaint.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court clarified that discovery is not necessary when there is no factual dispute about the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. Since Young did not dispute the existence of the agreement but only its scope, and because the agreement delegated arbitrability issues to the arbitrator, the court held that the District Court should have granted the motion to compel arbitration without discovery. The Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Young v. Experian Information Solutions Inc" on Justia Law

Michael Salazar filed a putative class action against the National Basketball Association (NBA) alleging violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA). Salazar claimed that he signed up for the NBA’s free online newsletter, provided personal information, and watched videos on NBA.com. He alleged that the NBA disclosed his video-watching history and Facebook ID to Meta Platforms, Inc. without his consent, violating the VPPA.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Salazar’s complaint. The court concluded that while Salazar had standing to sue, he did not plausibly allege that he was a “consumer” under the VPPA. The court reasoned that the VPPA only applies to consumers of audiovisual goods or services, and the NBA’s online newsletter did not qualify as such. The court also found that signing up for the newsletter did not make Salazar a VPPA “subscriber.”The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Salazar’s alleged injuries were sufficiently concrete to confer Article III standing. It also found that the district court erred in holding that Salazar was not a “subscriber of goods or services” under the VPPA. The appellate court concluded that the VPPA’s definition of “goods or services” is not limited to audiovisual materials and that Salazar’s exchange of personal information for the NBA’s online newsletter made him a “subscriber.” Consequently, the Second Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Salazar v. NBA" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between a taxpayers' association and a water district over the imposition of groundwater replenishment charges. The taxpayers' association alleged that the water district's charges violated constitutional provisions and unfairly benefited large agricultural businesses. The association sought a writ of mandate to stop the collection of these charges and to vacate the resolutions imposing them. They also claimed conversion, civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting, and violations of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) against the water district's board members, general manager, and consulting firms.The Superior Court of Riverside County denied the defendants' anti-SLAPP motion, which sought to strike several causes of action on the grounds that they arose from protected activities. The court found that the public interest exemption to the anti-SLAPP statute applied. Additionally, the court sustained the defendants' demurrer to the first amended petition and complaint, finding the claims time-barred under the validation statutes. The court also awarded over $180,000 in attorney's fees to the plaintiffs, deeming the anti-SLAPP motion frivolous.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court held that the public interest exemption did not apply because the relief sought could only be provided by the water district, not the individual defendants. The court found that the anti-SLAPP motion should have been granted for most causes of action, except for conversion and the writ of mandate against the general manager. Consequently, the fee award was reversed. The court also affirmed the demurrer ruling, as the claims against the individual defendants were not legally sufficient. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these findings. View "Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. Powell" on Justia Law

The plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the defendant for a new vehicle, which later exhibited multiple defects. Despite several repair attempts, the issues persisted. The plaintiff then filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging violations of California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, seeking various forms of relief including replacement or restitution, damages, and attorney fees.The case proceeded to trial in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, where the jury found the defendant liable and awarded the plaintiff damages. However, the jury did not find the defendant’s violation to be willful, thus no civil penalties were awarded. Subsequently, both parties filed motions regarding costs and attorney fees. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendant, limiting the plaintiff to pre-offer costs and attorney fees, and awarding the defendant post-offer costs based on a prior settlement offer under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court addressed two main issues: whether a section 998 offer consisting of two simultaneous offers is valid, and whether an offer that promises to pay for statutory categories of damages with disputes resolved by a third party is sufficiently certain. The court concluded that simultaneous offers are generally invalid under section 998 due to the uncertainty they create for the trial court in determining whether the judgment is more favorable than the offer. However, since only one of the defendant’s two offers was invalid, the remaining valid offer was operative. The court affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that the plaintiff was limited to pre-offer costs and attorney fees, and the defendant was entitled to post-offer costs. View "Gorobets v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC" on Justia Law

Debra Stevenson and Eugene Smith co-own a property for which Stevenson initially took out a loan from Wells Fargo. After defaulting, she refinanced with Fremont Investment & Loan, which paid off the Wells Fargo loan. Stevenson defaulted again and filed for bankruptcy. HSBC Bank, as Fremont's successor, sought to enforce its interest in the property through equitable subrogation, claiming the right to stand in Wells Fargo's position.In bankruptcy court, HSBC was found to be the holder of the note and entitled to equitable subrogation for the amount used to pay off the Wells Fargo loan. The federal district court adopted this decision, and the D.C. Circuit affirmed, holding that HSBC could enforce its interest despite Fremont's knowledge of Smith's co-ownership and refusal to sign the loan documents.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the Superior Court's grant of summary judgment to HSBC. The court held that Stevenson and Smith were collaterally estopped from relitigating issues decided in federal court, including HSBC's standing and entitlement to equitable subrogation. The court also rejected their Truth in Lending Act (TILA) rescission argument, as it had been previously litigated and decided against them. The court affirmed the Superior Court's ruling, finding no genuine issues of material fact and that HSBC was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. View "Stevenson v. HSBC Bank USA" on Justia Law

Kenneth and Janet Lathrop purchased a motorhome from a dealer in California, manufactured by Thor Motor Coach, Inc. They later sued the dealer and Thor under the Song-Beverly Consumers Warranty Act and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), alleging defects in the motorhome and failure to perform necessary repairs. Thor moved to stay the action based on a forum selection clause in its warranty, which designated Indiana as the exclusive forum for disputes and included a jury trial waiver and an Indiana choice-of-law clause. Thor acknowledged these provisions were unenforceable under California law and offered to stipulate that California substantive rights would apply in an Indiana court.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted Thor’s motion to stay, finding the forum selection clause mandatory and not unreasonable. The court placed the burden on the Lathrops to show that enforcing the clause was unreasonable. The Lathrops appealed, arguing that the trial court applied the wrong standard and that Thor did not meet its burden to show that litigating in Indiana would not diminish their unwaivable rights under California law.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court erred by placing the burden on the Lathrops instead of Thor. The appellate court held that Thor did not meet its burden to show that litigating in Indiana would not substantially diminish the Lathrops’ rights under the Song-Beverly Act and the CLRA. The court also found that enforcing the forum selection clause based on Thor’s proposed stipulation would violate California public policy and that the stipulation was insufficient to protect the Lathrops’ unwaivable statutory rights. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s order granting the motion to stay and directed the trial court to deny the motion. View "Lathrop v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, who are users of Coinbase's cryptocurrency platform, filed a complaint against Coinbase, Inc. alleging violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), the California False Advertising Law (FAL), and the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL). They sought public injunctive relief, claiming Coinbase misrepresented its security features to the public. Coinbase's user agreement, which plaintiffs accepted, included an arbitration clause. Coinbase moved to compel arbitration, arguing the plaintiffs sought private injunctive relief, which is subject to arbitration.The San Francisco Superior Court denied Coinbase’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the plaintiffs sought public injunctive relief, which is not subject to arbitration under California law. The court noted that the complaint exclusively sought public injunctive relief and did not request any relief that would solely benefit the plaintiffs or existing Coinbase customers. The court also referenced a related federal case, Aggarwal I, where plaintiffs sought individual relief, supporting the conclusion that the current complaint sought public injunctive relief.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that the plaintiffs’ complaint indeed sought public injunctive relief. The court explained that public injunctive relief under the CLRA, FAL, and UCL is intended to prohibit unlawful acts that threaten future injury to the public, rather than redress individual wrongs. The court found that the plaintiffs’ allegations and requests for relief were aimed at preventing Coinbase from continuing its allegedly deceptive practices, which primarily benefit the public. Consequently, the arbitration provision in Coinbase’s user agreement could not compel arbitration of the plaintiffs’ claims for public injunctive relief. View "Kramer v. Coinbase, Inc." on Justia Law