You are here: / / DAMAGES UNDER THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT ARE NOT PENALTIES, INSURANCE...
,

DAMAGES UNDER THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT ARE NOT PENALTIES, INSURANCE POLICY EXCLUSION OF COVERAGE FOR PENALTIES DID NOT APPLY.

The First Department rejected plaintiff insurer’s argument that it was not required to pay the cost of its insured’s settlement of a class action claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) because the settlement constituted a penalty (not covered by the policy) rather than compensatory damages:

To make out a claim under the FCRA (15 USC § 1681 et seq. ), the complaint must allege, inter alia, injury in fact, a “concrete and particularized” and “actual or imminent” “invasion of a legally protected interest,” i.e., the statutory right to the fair handling of the plaintiff consumer’s credit information … . The remedy for “willful” failure to comply with a requirement of the statute is “any actual damages sustained by the consumer by the failure or damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000,” and “such amount of punitive damages as the court may allow,” as well as costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees … . Since the consumer must elect the option of either actual or statutory damages, and may also recover punitive damages, it is reasonable to infer, as the motion court did, that the actual and the statutory damages serve the same purpose … . Moreover, the statute provides separately for a civil penalty (recoverable by the Federal Trade Commission) … . Plaintiff argues that the limitation of damages to a “willful” violation of the statute evinces a legislative intent to penalize intentional misconduct, rather than compensate for actual damages sustained, but this is not so, since willfulness as a statutory condition of civil liability “cover[s] not only knowing violations of a standard, but reckless ones as well” … . Thus, it is clear that Congress intended the statutory damages provided for by the FCRA to be compensatory and not a penalty … . Navigators Ins. Co. v Sterling Infosystems, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 08941, 1st Dept 12-29-16

INSURANCE LAW (DAMAGES UNDER THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT IS NOT A PENALTY, INSURANCE POLICY EXCLUSION OF COVERAGE OF PENALTIES DID NOT APPLY)/FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT (FRCA) (INSURANCE LAW, DAMAGES UNDER THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT IS NOT A PENALTY, INSURANCE POLICY EXCLUSION OF COVERAGE OF PENALTIES DID NOT APPLY)

You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS ENTITLED TO COMMON LAW INDEMNITY (FIRST DEPT).
THAT THE LADDER WAS NOT DEFECTIVE DID NOT MATTER, THE LADDER WAS NOT AN ADEQUATE SAFETY DEVICE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE LADDER WAS NOT ADEQUATELY SECURED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DID NOT, UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, HAVE A DUTY TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW FROM THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL, SINCE DEFENDANT UNDERTOOK TO DO SO IT MUST DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE OR EXACERBATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
JOURNALIST WHO INTERVIEWED DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO TESTIFY IN DEFENDANT’S MURDER TRIAL.
PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A SCAFFOLD WHICH HAD NO RAILINGS, PLAINTIFF DID NOT NEED TO DEMONSTRATE THE SCAFFOLD WAS DEFECTIVE, PLAINTIFF PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE, WHETHER THE CONDITION IS OPEN AND OBVIOUS SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AND THE PROPERTY OWNER’S DUTY TO WARN, BUT DOES NOT SPEAK TO PROXIMATE CAUSE OR NEGLIGENCE; HERE THE IRREGULARLY-SHAPED LANDING AND ABSENCE OF A HANDRAIL VIOLATED THE CITY BUILDING CODE; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
VOLUNTARY PAYMENT OF CERTAIN CHARGES ASSESSED IN CONNECTION WITH REFINANCING MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR LOANS WARRANTED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT WHICH ALLEGED THE CHARGES WERE UNENFORCEABLE PENALTIES AND WERE PAID UNDER DURESS (FIRST SEPT). ​
AFTER REMITTAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE APPELLATE DIVISION REFUSED TO EXERCISE ITS INTEREST OF JUSTICE JURISDICTION TO HEAR AN UNPRESERVED SENTENCING ISSUE; DEFENDANT WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE THREE-YEAR SENTENCE PROMISED AS PART OF A PLEA BARGAIN.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DENIAL OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW REQUESTS REVERSED, CASE REMITTED TO DETERMINE... INSURER OF COMPANY UNDER CONTRACT TO MAINTAIN STREET LIGHTING AND TRAFFIC CONTROL...