Justia Consumer Law Opinion Summaries

Ken Johansen filed a lawsuit against Liberty Mutual, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Liberty Mutual had contracted with Digitas, Inc. for marketing services, which included ensuring compliance with legal requirements. Johansen's complaint stemmed from telemarketing calls he received, which were traced back to Spanish Quotes, a subcontractor of Digitas. Liberty Mutual sought indemnification from Digitas under their Master Services Agreement (MSA), which included a warranty and indemnification clause.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts reviewed the case and found that Digitas had breached its contractual duty to indemnify Liberty Mutual. The court partially granted Liberty Mutual's motion for summary judgment, determining that Digitas had violated its warranty by allowing telemarketing practices that led to Johansen's complaint. The court also found that Liberty Mutual had met the preconditions for triggering Digitas's indemnity obligation. However, the court did not determine the damages and closed the case, leading Digitas to appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the appeal. The court affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing that Digitas breached its warranty and that Liberty Mutual satisfied the preconditions for indemnification. The appellate court concluded that the MSA did not require a finding of actual liability for the indemnity obligation to be triggered. The court also found that Liberty Mutual had provided Digitas with the opportunity to control the defense, which Digitas did not properly assume. The case was remanded for further proceedings to address any remaining issues, including the determination of damages. View "Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Digitas, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between an insurer, GEICO, and a windshield repair shop, Glassco, regarding the Florida Motor Vehicle Repair Act. From 2016 to 2019, Glassco performed nearly 1,800 windshield repairs for GEICO’s insureds, who assigned their insurance payment rights to Glassco. GEICO paid these claims at a discounted rate, leading to litigation. GEICO sought to recover payments and claimed that Glassco violated the Repair Act by not providing written estimates and other disclosures.The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida ruled in favor of Glassco, concluding that GEICO did not have a private right of action under the Repair Act because it was not a "customer" as defined by the statute. The court also held that Glassco’s violations did not render its invoices void. GEICO appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit certified two questions to the Supreme Court of Florida regarding the insurer's rights under the Repair Act.The Supreme Court of Florida answered both certified questions in the negative. First, it held that Fla. Stat. § 559.921(1) does not grant an insurance company a cause of action when a repair shop fails to provide a written repair estimate. The court emphasized that the statute defines a "customer" as the person who signs the repair estimate, and GEICO conceded it did not meet this definition.Second, the court held that the Repair Act violations do not void a repair invoice for completed windshield repairs, nor do they preclude a repair shop from being paid by an insurance company. The court noted that the statute allows for penalties and damages to be adjusted if repairs were authorized and properly performed, indicating that voiding invoices was not intended as a remedy. The court also found that subsequent amendments to the Repair Act rendered previous case law, which might have supported GEICO’s position, obsolete. View "Government Employees Insurance Company v. Glassco Inc." on Justia Law

A patron at Encore Boston Harbor Casino challenged the casino's practice of redeeming slot-machine tickets. When patrons finish using a slot machine, they receive a TITO ticket, which can be redeemed for cash. The casino offers two redemption options: cashier cages, which provide full cash value, and self-serve kiosks (TRUs), which dispense only bills and issue a TRU ticket for any remaining cents. The TRU ticket can be redeemed at the cashier cage or used in another slot machine. The plaintiff argued that this practice was unfair and deceptive, violating Massachusetts regulations and consumer protection laws.The case was initially filed in Massachusetts state court and then removed to federal court. The district court dismissed the plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim, ruling that an adequate legal remedy was available under Chapter 93A. The court later granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the remaining claims, including breach of contract, promissory estoppel, conversion, and unfair and deceptive business practices. The court found that the casino's practice did not violate its internal controls or Massachusetts regulations and that the plaintiff failed to show the practice was unfair or deceptive.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim, agreeing that Chapter 93A provided an adequate legal remedy. The court also upheld the summary judgment on the remaining claims, concluding that the casino's practice of issuing TRU tickets for cents did not violate regulations or constitute unfair or deceptive practices. The court found no evidence that the practice was immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous, and ruled that the plaintiff's common law claims also failed. View "Schuster v. Wynn Resorts Holdings, LLC" on Justia Law

Petitioners purchased a new 2020 Ford Super Duty F-250 from Fairway Ford in San Bernardino, financing the purchase through the dealer and signing a sale contract that included an arbitration provision. The truck developed mechanical issues during the warranty period, and after unsuccessful repair attempts by Ford of Ventura, the petitioners filed a lawsuit under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act against Ford Motor Company (FMC) and Ford of Ventura. FMC moved to compel arbitration based on the arbitration provision in the sale contract between the petitioners and the non-party dealer.The trial court granted FMC's motion to compel arbitration, finding that FMC could enforce the arbitration provision as a third-party beneficiary of the sale contract and that the petitioners were estopped from refusing to arbitrate their claims. The petitioners moved for reconsideration twice, citing appellate decisions that disapproved of the precedent relied upon by the trial court. Both motions for reconsideration were denied, with the trial court maintaining its original order compelling arbitration.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case and concluded that FMC and Ford of Ventura are neither intended third-party beneficiaries of the sale contract nor entitled to enforce the arbitration provision under the doctrine of equitable estoppel. The court found that the sale contract did not express an intent to benefit FMC and that the petitioners' claims against FMC and Ford of Ventura were based on warranty obligations independent of the sale contract. The appellate court issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its orders compelling arbitration and denying reconsideration, and to enter a new order denying FMC's motion to compel arbitration. View "Rivera v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff purchased a new 2014 Kia Optima and soon experienced issues with the vehicle's transmission. Despite multiple visits to the dealership, the problem persisted. The plaintiff requested a buyback from Kia Motors America, Inc. (Kia), but Kia initially declined, citing an inability to replicate the issue. Eventually, Kia offered to repurchase the vehicle, but the plaintiff found the terms unacceptable and continued to use the car while pursuing legal action.The Los Angeles County Superior Court found in favor of the plaintiff, awarding restitution and a civil penalty for Kia's willful violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. The jury awarded $42,568.90 in restitution and $85,317.80 in civil penalties, totaling $127,976.70. Kia filed post-trial motions to reduce the restitution amount and to strike the civil penalty, arguing that certain costs should not be included and that there was insufficient evidence of willfulness. The trial court partially granted Kia's motions, striking the civil penalty but upholding the restitution amount.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that the restitution award should exclude the cost of the manufacturer’s rebate, the optional theft deterrent device, the optional service contract, and certain insurance premiums. The court found that these costs were not recoverable under the Act. However, the court found substantial evidence to support the jury's finding that Kia knowingly violated the Act or did not act with a good faith and reasonable belief that it was complying. The court affirmed the trial court's order for a new trial on the issue of the civil penalty, directing that the new trial be consistent with its opinion and limited to the 21-month period between Kia's violation and the plaintiff's lawsuit. View "Valdovinos v. Kia Motors America, Inc." on Justia Law

Absolute Essence LLC sought to enter the medical marijuana market in Arkansas but was unable to secure a license. The company invested over a million dollars in the application process, including finding a location and addressing zoning issues. The Arkansas Medical Marijuana Commission outsourced the review process to Public Consulting Group, Inc., which scored 197 applications in two weeks. Absolute Essence received a low score and alleged that the scoring process was manipulated, with conflicts of interest among the scorers favoring larger, established players and resulting in racial disparities in license awards.The case was initially filed in state court, alleging tortious interference, fraud, racial discrimination, and civil conspiracy. The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, which dismissed the case for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court found that Absolute Essence's tortious interference claim failed because it did not establish a precise business expectancy with a specific third party. The fraud claim was dismissed due to a lack of justifiable reliance, as the company’s actions predated the involvement of the outside scorers. The race-discrimination claims were dismissed for failing to allege intentional discrimination, as the complaint only suggested a disparate impact without sufficient factual support. Finally, the civil conspiracy claim was dismissed because it could not stand without an underlying tort.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that Absolute Essence did not plead enough facts to support any of its claims. View "Absolute Essence LLC v. Public Consulting Group LLC" on Justia Law

In 2007, Dennis Collins, Suzanne Collins, David Butler, and Lucia Bott purchased long-term care insurance policies from Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife). They also bought an Inflation Protection Rider, which promised automatic annual benefit increases without corresponding premium hikes, though MetLife reserved the right to adjust premiums on a class basis. In 2015, 2018, and 2019, MetLife informed the plaintiffs of significant premium increases. The plaintiffs filed a class action in 2022, alleging fraud, fraudulent concealment, violations of state consumer protection statutes, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under Illinois and Missouri law.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri dismissed the case, ruling that the filed rate doctrine under Missouri and Illinois law barred the plaintiffs' claims. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiffs bringing claims under Missouri law failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the filed rate doctrine did not apply, they were not required to exhaust administrative remedies, and their complaint adequately alleged a breach of the implied covenant.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs' complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court found that MetLife's statements about premium expectations were not materially false and that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently allege intentional fraud or fraudulent concealment. The court also concluded that the statutory claims under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act were barred by regulatory exemptions. Lastly, the court determined that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing was not breached, as MetLife's actions were expressly permitted by the policy terms. View "Collins v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co." on Justia Law

From 2018 to 2020, Central Maine Power Company (CMP) sent misleading communications to customers behind on their electric bills, threatening winter disconnection without providing accurate information about customers' rights and the required process under Maine Public Utilities Commission rules. In 2020, the Commission investigated and CMP consented to a finding of rule violations and paid a $500,000 penalty.Brett Deane, Henry Lavender, and Joleen Mitchell, CMP customers who received these misleading communications, filed a multicount complaint against CMP in January 2020. The Business and Consumer Docket dismissed claims of fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and statutory violations, and granted summary judgment for CMP on the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the misrepresentation claims, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to allege pecuniary harm, which is necessary for such claims. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the statutory cause of action, determining that 35-A M.R.S. § 1501 does not create a private right of action. Finally, the court upheld the summary judgment on the IIED claim, finding that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate severe emotional distress as required by law, and that CMP's conduct, while extreme and outrageous, did not warrant an inference of severe emotional distress. View "Deane v. Central Maine Power Company" on Justia Law

Nine Black, female, low- to moderate-income first-time homebuyers purchased condominium units at the RiverEast at Grandview Condominium complex through the District of Columbia’s Housing Purchase Assistance Program. Shortly after moving in, they encountered severe habitability issues, including foundation problems, sewage, and mold. Their attempts to resolve these issues were unsuccessful, leading them to file a thirteen-count lawsuit against the developers, the District of Columbia Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD), and the RiverEast at Grandview Condominium Owner’s Association. The developers later filed for bankruptcy, and the plaintiffs were forced to evacuate their units.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia granted motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims against the District and the Association for failure to state a claim. The court found that DHCD, as a District agency, was non sui juris and thus incapable of being sued. It also concluded that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) because the District could not be considered a “merchant” under the statute. The court dismissed other claims, including violations of the District of Columbia Human Rights Act (DCHRA), breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and negligence.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the CPPA claim, holding that the District could be considered a merchant under the statute. The case was remanded for further consideration of whether the District’s trade practices were unfair or deceptive. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the DCHRA, breach of contract, IIED, and negligence claims, finding that the plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege facts to support these claims. The court also upheld the trial court’s denial of the plaintiffs’ request to amend their complaint. View "May v. River East at Grandview" on Justia Law

Marco Fernandez applied to rent an apartment, and RentGrow, Inc. provided a tenant screening report to the property owner. The report inaccurately indicated that Fernandez had a "possible match" with a name on the OFAC list, which includes individuals involved in serious crimes. However, the property manager did not understand or consider this information when deciding on Fernandez's application. Fernandez sued RentGrow, alleging that the company violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by not ensuring the accuracy of the OFAC information.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland certified a class of individuals who had similar misleading OFAC information in their reports. The court rejected RentGrow's argument that Fernandez and the class lacked standing because they did not demonstrate a concrete injury. The district court held that the dissemination of the misleading report itself was sufficient to establish a concrete injury.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and disagreed with the district court's conclusion. The appellate court held that reputational harm can be a concrete injury, but only if the misleading information was read and understood by a third party. In this case, there was no evidence that anyone at the property management company read or understood the OFAC information in Fernandez's report. Therefore, Fernandez failed to demonstrate a concrete injury sufficient for Article III standing. The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's class certification order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Fernandez v. RentGrow, Inc." on Justia Law