Court Opinion

ID: 9817307
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 04:13:37.310461+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:47.868087
License: Public Domain

BYBEE, Circuit Judge,
dissenting in part.
I join the majority opinion except so much of Section II.F that concludes that GEICO and Hartford insurance companies willfully violated FCRA. The district court awarded judgment to the insurance companies on summary judgment without reaching the question whether the companies “willfully fail[ed] to comply” with the requirements of FCRA. 15 U.S.C. § 168ín(a). The insurance companies urged the district court, as an alternative ground, to hold that the companies did not act willfully as a matter of law. ■ They urged the same position to us on appeal as an alternative ground for affirming the judgment. The appellants did not brief the question of willfulness until the reply briefs, and in each case the appellants requested that we decline to rule for the insurance companies and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings.
I would not decide, as a matter of law or fact, that the insurance companies behaved willfully on the basis of their lawyers’ arguments on appeal. I cannot conclude on the basis of the record before us that the companies’ actions here were so “objectively unmeritorious,” “clearly contrary to FCRA’s language,” “nonsensical,” and without “colorable argument” that we can decide their willfulness ourselves without the benefit of findings of fact. Maj. Op. at 1115-1116.
Accordingly, I would remand the question of whether the companies willfully failed to comply with FCRA to the district court for further proceedings. I respectfully dissent as to that portion of the opinion.