Opinion ID: 1453440
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: fair credit reporting act

Text: The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1681-1681t, was designed to require that consumer reporting agencies adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for consumer credit, ... and other information in a manner that is fair and equitable to the consumer... . 15 U.S.C.A. § 1681(b). The defendants assert that the FCRA should apply to this action because they wish to take advantage of the qualified immunity contained in the Act. This was raised as an affirmative defense. The qualified immunity is contained in § 1681h(e): Except as provided in sections 1681n and 1691o of this title, no consumer may bring any action or proceeding in the nature of defamation, invasion of privacy, or negligence with respect to the reporting of information against any consumer reporting agency, and user of information, or any person who furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency, based on information disclosed pursuant to section 1681g, 1681h, or 1681m of this title, except as to false information furnished with malice or willful intent to injure such consumer. This qualified immunity provided for in the FCRA was included in the jury instructions. Instruction No. 18, the libel instruction, required the jury to find [t]hat the defendant in publishing the false words acted with malice as defined in these instructions in failing to determine the truth of the words prior to publishing them, or with willful intent to injure the plaintiffs. Similarly, Instruction No. 19, the negligence instruction, stated as an element [t]hat the defendant was negligent, and the negligence involves the furnishing of false information with malice as defined in these instructions or willful intent to injure plaintiffs. Malice was defined in Instruction No. 13, as something that was said, made, or done with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. The jury took this qualified immunity into consideration and specifically found in the Special Verdict that First Security did publish a libelous statement which was a proximate cause of the damages suffered by the Hoglans, and that there was negligence on the part of First Security. Because the qualified immunity was contained in the jury instructions, we hold that there was no error in not applying the FCRA.