1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

CATHERINE DOUGLAS, individually, 

and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY 

COMPANY, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 1:20-cv-04472 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

NOW COMES Plaintiff, CATHERINE DOUGLAS, individually and on behalf of all 

other similarly situated, through undersigned counsel, complaining of Defendant, THE 

TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, as follows: 

NATURE OF THE ACTION 

1. Plaintiff brings this action seeking redress for violations of the Fair Credit 

Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. 

2. “Congress made it clear that the FCRA is designed to preserve the consumer’s 

privacy in the information maintained by consumer reporting agencies.” Cole v. U.S. Capital, Inc, 

389 F.3d 719, 725 (7th Cir. 2004) citing 15 U.S.C. § 1681(a)(4). 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

4. Venue in this district is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). 

Case: 1:20-cv-04472 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:1
2 

PARTIES 

5. CATHERINE M. DOUGLAS (“Plaintiff”) is a natural person, over 18-years-ofage, who at all times relevant resided at 1503 South Luther Avenue, Lombard, Illinois 60148. 

6. Plaintiff is a “consumer” as defined by 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681a(b) and (c). 

7. THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY (“Defendant”) operates as an 

insurance company. The Company offers home, auto, commercial, life, health, recreational 

vehicle, business, travel, and other personal insurance services. 

8. Defendant maintains its principal place of business at 1 Tower Square, Hartford, 

Connecticut 06183. 

9. Defendant is a “person” as defined by 15 U.S.C. §1681a(b). 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

10. On or around January 9, 2020, Defendant – without Plaintiff's consent – accessed 

Plaintiff's Equifax credit report. 

11. At the time Defendant accessed Plaintiff's credit report, Plaintiff did not have open 

accounts with Defendant or otherwise have an existing business relationship with Defendant. 

12. At the time Defendant accessed Plaintiff's credit report, Plaintiff was not applying 

or otherwise seeking Defendant's services. 

13. Accordingly, Plaintiff was mystified by Defendant's request for her highly 

confidential credit information. 

14. Upon information and belief, Defendant misrepresented to Equifax that Plaintiff 

was seeking services from Defendant or had an existing business relationship with Defendant. 

15. Defendant received sensitive personal information concerning Plaintiff under false 

pretenses. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04472 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:2
3 

16. Defendant obtained Plaintiff's credit report without Plaintiff's authorization or 

knowledge. 

DAMAGES 

17. Defendant's intrusive conduct resulted in significant harm to Plaintiff. 

18. Specifically, Defendant's inquiries adversely impact a consumer's credit rating. 

19. Accordingly, Defendant's credit rating was adversely impacted by Defendant's 

unauthorized inquiry. 

20. Moreover, Defendant's conduct has caused Plaintiff damages in form of invasion 

of privacy as well as fear that Plaintiff may be a victim of stolen identity. 

21. As result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff has suffered various damages as set forth 

herein, including specifically, invasion of privacy, reduced credit rating, emotional distress, and 

time wasted monitoring her credit report for fraudulent account activity. 

22. Concerned with the long-term impact of Defendant's inquiry, Plaintiff retained 

counsel to enforce her privacy rights and compel Defendant to remove its inquiry from Plaintiff's 

Equifax credit report. 

CLASS ALLEGATIONS 

23. All paragraphs of this Complaint are expressly adopted and incorporated herein as 

though fully set forth herein. 

24. Upon information and belief, Defendant systematically accesses consumers’ credit 

reports without consumers' authorization by misrepresenting to the credit reporting agencies that 

that consumers are seeking services from Defendant or have an existing business relationship with 

Defendant. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04472 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:3
4 

25. Defendant's systematic practice of accessing consumers’ credit reports without a 

permissible purpose constitutes a willful and malicious violation(s) of 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(f). 

26. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) 

individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated (“Putative Class”) defined as follows: 

All persons within the United States (1) who have had their consumer credit 

report(s) obtained by Defendant; (2) within the five (5) years preceding the date 

of the complaint through the date of class certification; (3) from Equifax, 

Experian and/or Trans Union; (4) who were not existing Defendant customers 

and (5) whom did not seek services from Defendant. 

27. The following individuals are excluded from the Putative Class: (1) any Judge or 

Magistrate Judge presiding over this action and members of their families; (2)Defendant, 

Defendant’ subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Defendant or 

its parents have a controlling interest and their current or former employees, officers and directors; 

(3) Plaintiff’s attorneys; (4) persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion 

from the Putative Class; (5) the legal representatives, successors or assigns of any such executed 

persons; and (6) persons whose claims against Defendant have been fully and finally adjudicated 

and/or released. 

A. Numerosity

28. Upon information and belief, the members of the Putative Class are so numerous 

that joinder of them is impracticable. 

29. The exact number of the members of the Putative Class is unknown to Plaintiff at 

this time and can be only be determined only through targeted discovery. 

30. The members of the Putative Class are ascertainable because the class is defined by 

reference to objective criteria. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04472 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:4
5 

31. The members of the Putative Class are identifiable in that their names, addresses, 

and telephone numbers can be identified in business records maintained by Defendant. 

B. Commonality and Predominance

32. There are many questions of law and fact common to the claims of Plaintiff and the 

Putative Class. 

33. Those questions predominate over any questions that may affect individual 

members of the Putative Class. 

C. Typicality 

34. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of members of the Putative Class because Plaintiff and 

members of the Putative Class are entitled to damages as result of Defendant’s conduct. 

D. Superiority and Manageability

35. This case is also appropriate for class certification as class proceedings are superior 

to all other available methods for the efficient and fair adjudication of this controversy. 

36. The damages suffered by the individual members of the Putative Class will likely 

be relatively small, especially given the burden and expense required for individual prosecution. 

37. By contrast, a class action provides the benefits of single adjudication, economies 

of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court. 

38. Economies of effort, expense, and time will be fostered and uniformity of decisions 

ensured. 

E. Adequate Representation

39. Plaintiff will adequately and fairly represent and protect the interests of the Putative 

Class. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04472 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:5
6 

40. Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to those of the Putative Class, and Defendant 

has no defenses unique to Plaintiff. 

41. Plaintiff has retained competent and experienced counsel in consumer class action 

litigation. 

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 

Count I: 

Defendant’s violation(s) of 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(f) 

(On behalf of Plaintiff and the Members of the Putative Class) 

42. All paragraphs of this Complaint are expressly adopted and incorporated herein as 

though fully set forth herein. 

43. Plaintiff’s Equifax credit report that Defendant accessed without authorization is a 

“consumer report” as defined by §1681a(d)(1). 

44. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §1681b(f) by obtaining Plaintiff’s Equifax credit 

report without Plaintiff’s authorization and without a permissible purpose enumerated in the 

FCRA. 

45. As stated above, Plaintiff is not and has never been a customer of Defendant. 

46. Moreover, Plaintiff did not seek services from Defendant at the time Defendant 

accessed Plaintiff’s Equifax credit report. 

47. Plaintiff did not have an existing business relationship with Defendant at the time 

Defendant accessed Plaintiff’s Equifax credit report. 

48. Defendant willfully and maliciously violated §1681b(f) when it accessed Plaintiff’s 

credit report without a permissible purpose under the FCRA. 

49. In the alternative, Defendant negligently violated §1681b(f) by accessing Plaintiff’s 

credit report without a permissible purpose under the FCRA. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04472 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:6
7 

50. As described above, Plaintiff was harmed by Defendant’s conduct. 

51. Upon information and belief, Defendant knowingly and systematically obtains 

consumer credit reports without a permissible purpose prescribed by the FCRA. 

52. Upon information and belief, Defendant does not maintain policies and procedures 

to protect consumers’ privacy interests and prevent the unlawful access of consumer credit reports. 

53. Due to Defendant’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages, 

statutory damages, and punitive damages. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment 

in her favor and against Defendant, as follows: 

A. Granting certification of the proposed class, including the designation of Plaintiff 

as the named representative, and the appointment of the undersigned as Class 

Counsel. 

B. Declaring that the practices complained of herein are unlawful and violate the Fair 

Credit Reporting Act; 

C. Enjoining Defendant from accessing consumer credit reports without a permissible 

purpose; 

D. Awarding Plaintiff and the class members actual damages, in an amount to be 

determined at trial, for each of the underlying FCRA violations; 

E. Awarding Plaintiff and the class members statutory damages of $1,000.00 for each 

violation of the FCRA pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1681n; 

F. Awarding Plaintiff and the class members punitive damages in an amount to be 

determined at trial for the underlying FCRA violations pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 

§1681n and 15 U.S.C. §1681o; 

G. Awarding Plaintiff her costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 

§1681n and 15 U.S.C. §1681o; and 

H. Awarding any other relief this Honorable Court deems just and appropriate. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04472 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:7
8 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), Plaintiff demands a trial by jury. 

Date: July 30, 2020 Respectfully Submitted, 

 CATHERINE DOUGLAS 

By: /s/ Mohammed O. Badwan 

Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq. 

Victor T. Metroff, Esq. 

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative 

Class Members 

Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd 

2500 S Highland Ave, Suite 200 

Lombard, IL 60148 

Telephone: (630) 575-8180 

mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com 

vmetroff@sulaimanlaw.com 

Case: 1:20-cv-04472 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:8